Tag Archives: Karl Marx

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

Removing “So Help You God”

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

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

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

Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Lockwood: Socialists Are Really Digressives, Not Progressives

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

Part of the text of that Compact reads,

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

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

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

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

Complaints Harvested from Socialism

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

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

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

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

The Remedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Division, Class Struggle and the Progressive Income Tax

American Division, Class Struggle and the Progressive Income Tax – “What has happened to us? Why has partisan animosity replaced thoughtful discussion and debate?”

by Bill Lockwood

America is arguably more divided now than ever in its history. Cleavages exist between races; whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, American Indians; between political parties, Democrat versus Republican; between classes rich and poor, middle class supporting the welfare class.  We are daily fed a diet of radical divides between the police and minority communities; even variances between Californians, some of which are ready to splinter off and form their own state and others who are prepared to join Mexico again. Multiculturalists in the universities commonly celebrate foreign cultures while denigrating Americanism. The states are becoming even more balkanized than during the Civil War in which north and south soldiers still respected each other on the battlefield.

What has happened to us? Why has partisan animosity replaced thoughtful discussion and debate? Why is it that everyone who differs from me becomes either a xenophobe, homophobe, Islamaphobe, or some other phobe? Besides the obvious fact that our culture has retreated from God–which lies at the heart of our division–is the “class struggle” sponsored by Marxist philosophy. Deep wedges are being driven into our once-peaceful culture.

Anti-communist researcher James D. Bales wrote, “Class struggle is such an essential part of the Marxian philosophy that one cannot abandon it without abandoning Marxism.” A summary of Karl Marx’s views indicates that a class is made up of a group of individuals who sustain the same relationship to the ownership or the non-ownership of the means of production. The two basic classes are those who own the means of production and distribution (the bourgeois) and those who do not (proletariat).

Friedrich Engels, Marx’s partner in crime, explained that the great lever to effect social change is to divide society along “political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological” class. In this way, by driving these wedges, Marx produced the collision in society necessary for socialism. It is without argument that Marx’s class struggle has become tremendously successful in America. But how did these wedges get a foothold among our once united people?

The Income Tax

Granted, many divisions are natural, such as between races. But the primary method of exacerbating these natural divides and creating more class division is the Income Tax. Karl Marx knew this, therefore, after the abolition of private property, Marx’s second plank is: a “heavy, progressive income tax.”

Our founding fathers knew the dangers of progressive taxation as well. They warned against it, even writing into the Constitution: “All duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” (Art. 1.8). But the so-called “Progressives” (read, socialists), taking their cues from Karl Marx instead of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, inaugurated the Progressive Income Tax in 1913. America has been in the throes of class struggle ever since.

Some History

Twenty years prior to the infamous Income Tax of 1913, as Progressivism began to take hold, Congress had experimented with another income tax (1894) that was designed to tax only the top 2% of wealth holders. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional (Burton Fulsom, Founders on Taxation).

Stephen Field, a veteran of 30 years on the Court, was outraged that Congress would pass a bill to tax a small voting bloc and exempt the larger group of voter. At age 77, Field not only repudiated Congress’s actions he also penned a prophecy. A small progressive tax, he predicted, ‘will be but a stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.’

This is exactly what occurred. Under the influence of the Progressives at the turn of the last century liberal Republicans and Democrats both crafted bills in Congress designed to “soak the rich.” Conservatives who blocked the unconstitutional idea were labeled as favoring “the part of the rich.”

Class warfare had begun in earnest. Uniform taxation was a thing of the past and along with it equal protection under the law. The government, by nature, now became the aggressor to shake down the little man. By the time of Franklin Roosevelt votes were being bought and sold by means of the IRS code while on the flip side Roosevelt’s opponents were subjected to IRS investigations and continual government harassment.

Elliot Roosevelt, the president’s son, stated in 1975 that “my father may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.” As Burton Fulsom points out, Elliot added, “each of his successors followed his lead.”

What is the point of this history? Barack Obama’s employment of the IRS to target conservatives while Lois Lerner headed the Exempt Organizations Unit is nothing new. Obama was featured on a major magazine as Roosevelt himself. Now other government agencies, including the entire Justice Department, is being revealed as a partisan player in power politics. Witness the disgrace of James Comey and the leadership of the FBI.

James Madison was right all along. “The spirit of party and faction” would prevail entirely in the United States if Congress could tax one group of citizens and confer benefits on another group. Our social unrest will continue until the Income Tax is repealed.

Shadow Government?: Obama’s Marxist Organizing for Action

Shadow Government?: Obama’s Marxist Organizing for Action “His advocacy group of Alinsky-style agitators is called OFA, “Organizing for Action.”

by Bill Lockwood

Former President Obama is a revolutionary Marxist. His roots all trace to the hard communist left; his lawless actions as president point to the same; and his post-presidency is about more street organizing to resist the Trump organization. True to his disruptive form, while still in office in 2013, Obama established an astro-turf organization by which, after he left the White House, he may continue efforts to overturn constitutional government and escort America into a socialistic nightmare. His advocacy group of Alinsky-style agitators is called OFA, “Organizing for Action.” OFA originally stood for “Obama for America” and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, IL. Its goal is to create communist-style pressure from below to produce society upheaval.

With over 30,000 members, Obama marshals OFA fellow-travelers from his Washington, D.C. nerve-center to create chaos such as we have witnessed since the election over a year ago. As The New York Post writer Paul Sperry put it, Obama has set up a “shadow government to sabotage” the Trump Administration through a “network of leftist nonprofits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide.”

What are Obama’s OFA’s Issues?

First, Climate Change. OFA’s website tells that Obama’s activists are to “turn up the heat” on “climate change deniers.” The “stakes are too high” for us not to act, it is claimed. His radical left environmental agenda, in sync with the socialist United Nations world government plan, is to use “Climate Change” to redistribute America’s wealth to foreign nations while at the same time shutting down the progress of American industry. That’s progressivism for you.

Environmentalism is the mechanism by which socialists wish to control Americans and curtail their freedom. So whether it is global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever—it is all “human caused” per Obama and that calls for Big Brother to control the rest of us. Liberty be trashed.

Regulate industry, nationally and internationally. Place new controls on business. Ban drilling for American-based companies while allowing it for foreign companies. Steal money from American businesses (carbon penalties) and give it to foreign nations. Malign deniers of government orthodoxy. Orchestrate thousands of unwitting college students who have been trained by leftist professors and are looking for a cause for which to march. Pluck the feathers of the eagle of American freedom. Karl Marx would be proud.

Second, Abortion. Obama has always been radically pro-abortion. Killing the unborn bothers him not in the least. He even voted in 1997 while in the Illinois State Senate to allow the abominable Herod-like procedure of “partial birth abortion” to continue. In a comment years later to a questioner in western Pennsylvania Obama said if his daughters made a mistake in getting pregnant he would not want them “punished with a baby.”

The Bible teaches that “children are a heritage from the Lord and the fruit of the womb is His reward” (Psalm 127:3). To Obama however, children are the instruments of a curse to people whose goal is free sexual activity. This reminds me of a Democrat woman who recently told me, “If you want me to carry a baby until birth, then you help pay for it!” No, ma’am. If you do not wish for children, control your sexual activity.

Perhaps no issue is quite as revealing as this one. Those who proudly enlist in the “Democrat” army of the OFA apparently have seared their consciences by supporting this public policy of infanticide. It is a pro-death culture in America encoded into legislation.

Third, Homosexual Deception. In keeping with his Marxist Alinsky-style roots which proudly utilizes lying and deception as tools for advancement, Obama repeatedly and blatantly lied about his feelings on this issue in order to manipulate the masses. David Axelrod, the primary adviser to Obama during his campaigns for president, admitted this in his 2015 memoir:

Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union.’”

Obama followed Axelrod’s advice and publicly announced in 2008 that he believed marriage was between a “man and a woman.” The simple-minded were deceived. According to researcher Charles Scaliger, as early as 1996, while an Illinois state Senator, Obama answered a questionnaire in which he boldly stated that he supported “legalizing same-sex marriage” and would “fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” All of his “public support” for Christian marriage was a calculated lie.

Fourth, Socialized Medicine. That socialized medicine has never been as successful as the free-market in any country it has been tried is evident. America herself tried two general forays into socialism both at Massachusetts Bay Colony and Jamestown. Both were colossal failures.

Partly because of these failures, the founding generation outlawed any and all re-distribution schemes in America by the Constitution. Samuel Adams wrote,

The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional.”

Of course, Obama is not the first nor the last to push unconstitutional communism. In the words of Samuel Adams, ObamaCare is “arbitrary and despotic.”

It is arbitrary in that it removes any connection between responsible living and healthcare. If one by personal choice burns his brain with drugs and alcohol—those result of those choices ought not be saddled on others who choose to live clean godly lives. Exactly the same thing is true pertaining to sexual activity and childbirth. Personal responsibility is anathema to Obama and OFA. This is why abortion itself is listed as “women’s healthcare.” ObamaCare cuts the connection between personal responsibility in lifestyle choices and the natural consequences that flow from those choices.

It is despotic because rulers and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. make many of the decisions for a patient. Not the patient him or herself; not the family; not the local community of doctors—but government employees at a desk. Whether it be procedures, medicines, which doctor one may utilize, which healthcare plan one desires, how much money one must pay for the “uninsured”—all controlled by government.

Predictably, ObamaCare is a complete failure. Tax hikes and premium increases of over 100% in many cases continue to punish the workers in favor of those who either choose not work or who, by life-choices, have landed in low-earning jobs. More citizens saw their “pre-ObamaCare benefits” completely “disappear under the spiraling deductibles and premiums. But this loss was small potatoes to an ex-president who cared not but to kill the unborn.

The American people rejected Obama’s policies with the election of Donald J. Trump. This apparently only signaled street-war to the community-organizer who now mobilizes thousands of dupes against lawful society. Obstruction, riots, protests, and revolution are now in store for America.

Scientific Socialism

Scientific Socialism “This labeling became a weapon.

by Bill Lockwood

One of the lesser remembered items regarding communism is that Karl Marx, the founder of modern forms of communism, dubbed it Scientific Socialism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was claimed by Marx to be “scientific.” This label was habitually used by him “to distinguish himself from his many enemies. He and his work were ‘scientific,’ they were not” (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals). This labeling became a weapon. With the seeming onslaught of socialism engulfing America today, we would do well to learn the lesson of “labeling.”

Karl Marx

First, by expressing his theory as “scientific socialism” Marx was expressing his kinship with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. “He felt he had found a scientific explanation of human behavior in history akin to Darwin’s theory of evolution.” However, just as today, Darwin’s theory was the unprovable thesis that began on the assumed premise that the explanation of the world had nothing to do with God. Communism begins and ends with atheism. This goes a long way in explaining how American culture has changed into an irreligious one.

After reading Darwin’s Origin of the Species, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels. “Although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view” (Quoted by Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany).

As pointed out by Weikart, “many pacifists, feminists, birth control advocates, and homosexual rights activists … were enthusiastic Darwinists and used Darwinian arguments to support their political and social agenda.” Darwinism, like Marxism, is an entire worldview. As German biologist Arnold Dodel stated in in 1904, Darwinism is a “new worldview” which actually “rests on the theory of evolution. On it we have to construct a new ethics … All values will be revalued.”

Magnetic Pull

Second, to label Marxism “science” exerted a “magnetic pull” on the intellectual class of the United States which had already rejected a God-centered worldview. Many Americans, from the Civil War period forward, adopted a materialistic view of the world. This included President Woodrow Wilson, who was himself a “historical materialist.” This notion basically states that material conditions alone determine the course of history. Man’s spiritual nature is excluded from consideration. This concept appealed to elitists such as Wilson who was bred in the halls of higher education. It appealed to their vanity.

As a matter of fact, Darwin’s theory of evolution was and is at the bottom of the entire “progressive” movement—which is nothing less than socialism. This doctrine of “historicism,” Wilson’s faith, is described as the evolutionary theory applied to history and politics (Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism). This, in turn, was rooted in Hegel’s philosophy; precisely the scholastic who influenced Karl Marx. There is little difference between Marx’s dialectic, which he borrowed from Hegel while emphasizing that economic conditions of men determine the course of man’s development and Wilson’s historicism, which posited that history must run a predetermined materialistic course and one cannot transcend one’s historical environment (Pestritto). For Marx, all of reality was framed in “economics”; for Wilson, all of reality was framed in the historical time-frame from which one could not escape.

All of this is simply materialism—there is no reality beyond the material world—but labeling it “scientific” gave it an air of snobbish superiority. After all, once one sides with the “infallibility” of “science,” the “theories” spawned in those halls are beyond review by the rest of us ordinaries.

Ironically, Marx was anything but a scientist. He not only was temperamentally unfit to be a scientist, for there was nothing scientific about him, but in a “deeper sense he was not really a scholar at all.” Marx was not interested in finding truth, but merely in proclaiming theories whether they squared with reality or not (Johnson, 54).

Marx, along with his fellow communists, were only interested in devising weapons for building a totalitarian dictatorship and for “fomenting unrest and ill will between man and man everywhere in the world.” And wherever class warfare rages there is the hobgoblin of communism—scientific socialism.

Policing the Pulpit & The Johnson Amendment

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the Socialism of the Democratic Party is Evil

Why the Socialism of the Democratic Party is Evil

by Bill Lockwood

Socialism is a competing view of human nature than that offered by the Bible. At the heart of a socialistic worldview is the basic premise that the nature of man is shaped by the economic system. It is only because of this particular view of human nature that socialism includes a theory of the nature and function of government which redistributes wealth. In other words, the only way to change human behavior is through forcible redistribution of resources. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, asserted in the Saturday night Democratic debate when he said that Climate Change is the biggest “security threat” to the United States.

On Sunday, CBS News’ John Dickerson followed up the Saturday debate with Sanders on “Face the Nation,” which Dickerson hosts. Dickerson asked whether or not Sanders had changed his mind on the assessment that Climate Change was the biggest “security threat” in light of the Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris. Socialist Sanders responded, “If we are going to see an increase in drought, flood and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that people all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources.” “If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrations of people fighting over land that will sustain them, and that will lead to international conflicts.”

Dickerson interjected, “But how does drought connect with attacks by [the Islamic State] in the middle of Paris?” Sanders continued, “When you have drought, when people can’t grow their crops, they’re going to migrate into cities, and when people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al-Qaeda and ISIS are using right now. So where you have discontent, where you have instability, that’s where problems arise, and certainly, without a doubt, climate change will lead to that.”

Overtly Anti-Christian

The bloody Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris are aided and abetted by this false and ignorant view of human nature espoused by socialism and voiced by Bernie Sanders. It refuses common sense and insists, even before the smoke in Paris has dissipated, that people are not as much shaped by what they believe—the Koran or any other set of beliefs—but by economics. Sanders would have us to believe that the poverty of the attackers, not the teaching of the Koran, is the cause. This is mass BRAINWASHING on a Hitlerian scale that has emanated from the academy and has engulfed the entire Democratic Party. Sadly, it will continue to wreak a horrific vengeance upon society as long as liberalism fails to grasp the basics of human nature.

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.”

Oscar Jaszi, the famed Hungarian social scientist and politician, noted that socialists insist that the “immorality of the established order is traceable NOT to the …nature of man, but to ‘corrupt institutions.’”  Therefore, socialism always seeks to transform the institutions of society because they are somehow “unjust.” Since socialism teaches that the nature of man is shaped by the economic system, if one changes the economic system from private ownership to the collective state ownership, the nature of man will be changed—for the better per the Democratic Party.

The Reality of Human Nature

The founders of America, with one voice, repudiated the socialistic fantasy regarding human nature. Man is a free moral agent which is independent of his economic status. Man is sinful by practice (Rom. 3:23) which is why unbridled power, not poverty, was considered the greatest enemy to freedom. Human experience shows that poverty does not necessarily breed bad behavior nor does an equality of goods among citizens foster a better society. Moral sensitivity is imbedded in the heart of poor and rich alike and has nothing whatsoever to do with our wealth or lack thereof. Men are still moved by ideals, good or bad.

One man who had discarded this truth only to find it again was American editor and journalist Max Eastman. After experimenting with socialistic theories, even traveling to the Soviet Union to learn from the masters at the Kremlin, he repudiated it. In his Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, he tells us why socialism is always a failure. “It seemed perfectly clear, once the question was boldly put, that if the socialist hypothesis were valid in general, some tiny shred of the benefits promised by it would have appeared when the Russian capitalists were expropriated and production taken over by the state, no matter how untoward the circumstances. By that time everything in Russia was worse from the standpoint of socialist ideals that it had been under the regime of the Tsar.  I did not need any additional experiments such as that of Nazi Germany, or in England, to the obvious drift in other countries, to convince me.  I was sure than the whole idea of extending freedom, or justice, or equality, or any other civilized value, to the lower classes through common ownership of the means of production was a delusive dream, a bubble that had taken over a century to burst.”

As Eastman would say, how many more failed experiments do we need of socialistic control before we will repudiate it? Apparently, even blood in the streets of Paris does not faze the socialists. They must preach their foolish theory. The Barack Obama’s and Bernie Sanders of the world will keep on messing around with their academic ivory-tower falsehoods to the erosion of our safety and loss of our freedom.

Back to Homepage