Tag Archives: The Bible

Bill Lockwood: Socialism Has Corrupted the Pulpit 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

The people of Isaiah’s day said to the seers, “’See no more visions! And to the prophets, ‘Give us no more visions of what is right. Tell us pleasant (smooth) things, prophesy illusions. Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.” – Isaiah 30:10-11

The Jews of Isaiah’s day (approximately 730 years Before Christ) were God’s chosen people, but they had grown rebellious. The prophets checked them in these pursuits, but they did not wish to hear of God’s commandments and especially His hatred of sin. Remind us not any more of these things!

Instead, they wanted flatteries—things agreeable to their own wishes. Their desire was to be entertained, not instructed and certainly not corrected. Illusions and deceits is what they wished for. As Matthew Henry comments, “But as they despised the word of God, their sins undermined their safety. Their state would be dashed in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Sounds like today’s pulpits, doesn’t it? No spirited edge, only milquetoast and honeyed words. What occurred? Socialism.

Socialism

Max Eastman (1883-1969) was a prominent editor, political activist and “prominent radical” who, like many in Woodrow Wilson’s “progressive” America, became infatuated with Marxism. Eastman traveled to the Soviet Union to learn firsthand how to be a good socialist and became friends with Leon Trotsky. Years later, when Eastman became convinced that socialism is void of validity, he reflected upon his time as a Marxist. “I sadly regret the precious twenty years I spent muddling and messing around with this idea, which with enough mental clarity and moral force I might have seen through when I went to Russia in 1922” (Reflections on the Failure of Socialism).

Eastman commented on socialism this way.

Marxists profess to reject religion in favor of science, but they cherish a belief that the external universe is evolving with reliable, if not divine, necessity in exactly the direction in which they want it to go. They do not conceive themselves as struggling to build the communist society in a world which is of its own nature indifferent to them. They conceive themselves as traveling toward that society in a world which is like a moving-stairway, but walking in the wrong direction. This is not a scientific, but in the most technical sense, a religious conception of the world. (Max Eastman, Marxism—Is It Science?)

Eastman knew whereof he spoke.

Socialism is not normally classified as a religion, but when its doctrines are examined, it more closely resembles a religious concept than anything else. The only difference between socialism and Christianity is that the latter is grounded upon historical fact while socialistic faith is founded upon unproven assumptions. Communism particularly is a philosophy of faith in the dialectic—the zig-zagging of history onward and upward to a more perfect society.

Because socialism is in reality an implicit religion, Spargo & Arner, who virtually wrote the textbook on Socialism, called Elements of Socialism (1912), tell us that not only is a “future life” such as heaven an “invention of man” but that God Himself is a “construct of the human mind.” They present socialism as an “alternative to Christianity” which infuses a passion for perfection “without God” and “without heaven.” Further, it is based upon the general theory of evolution  (p. 63, 75, 111, 206, 222), which itself is a theory designed to replace belief in God.

The Pulpit

This brings us back to the churches of today. Far too many Bible classes, pulpits and church groups have bought into the lie that one needs to keep separated “politics” and “religion.” To frame the issue this way is to make like some preachers are running for political office themselves in sermon material. The real issue is: Do social ideas have any input from the Bible? Should the church and Christians have any interest in social ideas for the community and the family? Do biblical principles have any say on the social issues of the day?

In truth, the social issues plaguing our society today are born of the alternative religion: socialism. Welfare, government housing, government schools, government manipulation of the free market, government intrusion into farming, businesses, health care, family planning, and the list goes on.

Should Christians be interested at all in maintaining a free society by which they may, without reprisal, worship God? Or, shall we capitulate to the social justice warriors such as the Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s who wish to force their godless worldview on a free people? When Marxist BLM declares its intention to rid society of the “nuclear family,” should biblical Christians have something to say?

Is it in the interest of Christians to be able to defend private property and enjoy the fruits of our own toil as biblical principles teach? Does “thou shalt not steal” not imply the concept of private property? Or, shall we endorse government plunder in order to provide medical care, housing, education, food, services and you-name-it for those who do not have these things? Should I not show the difference between freedom to be charitable and government confiscation and squandering? Or, should we ignore these crucial distinctions?

Frederic Bastiat, the 19th-century French economist, made this crucial point: “Socialism … confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to it being done at all….It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Shall pulpits insist upon the freedom to teach our children the way of the Lord in homeschooling (Deut. 6:4-9); or must we capitulate to government schools with its full display of hedonistic life-styles in the halls and Marxist propaganda in the classrooms? Is it not within the scope of this topic to remind congregants that there are political operatives that wish to remove this God-given liberty?

Am I, as a preacher, out-of-line to remind churches in sermonic material that some political candidates support the strong arm of government confiscating your own monies to pay for ungodly abortions? For redistributing your earnings to those who refuse to work? For giving your money to those who deal in drugs and wander the streets lawlessly looking for more stores and innocents to loot?

In preaching against homosexuality am I not within my God-given boundaries to remind people that some politicians not only support this wickedness, but use the strong arm of the law to coerce it within your houses of worship and private businesses? Shall preachers not “mark” those in apostate pulpits who endorse this lifestyle? (Rom. 16:17). And does not consistency demand we also “mark and avoid” the devil’s legions in the political ranks who are doing the same?

R.C. Foster, a Christian Church preacher of yesteryear, commented on the anemia that had already begun affecting the pulpits of his day. He commented that things will change in America only “when Christian martyrs, instead of craven cowards or selfish worldlings, stand in the pulpit.” The pulpit remains powerful when the gospel is preached and the church refuses to “substitute theatrical performances, pie suppers, and pool-tables for the preaching of the gospel.” But when “the husks of philosophical and scientific speculation, modernism, and infidelity are substituted for the gospel, God’s people are starved and the kingdom suffers defeat.”

Preaching the gospel includes more than merely speaking the “smooth things” (2 Tim. 4:2-4). Corruption in the pulpits is caused, in part, by the siren-song of socialism which has infatuated the unsuspecting and unlearned and caused multitudes of preachers to preach merely the illusions of the day.

Bill Lockwood: “I Am Sick of This God Stuff” 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

In response to an article posted several years ago, one wrote me with this sour note: I am sick of this god stuff! The original piece is entitled “Where does the Constitution mention God?”  The letter-writer included several alleged quotes from Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington that supposedly put the kibosh on the idea that the founding fathers had any recourse to God or biblical principles when crafting our nation.  But, as is common with atheists or those “sickened with god stuff,” their energy would be better served to learn the real principles of our Constitution as well as the Bible.

Modernists love to chide that the founders could not have been genuine Christians in light of some of their own statements which seem to decry Christianity itself, or in their toleration and practice of slavery. But the entire issue does not turn on whether or not any or all of them were actually faithful Christians. Rather, did the framers of our nation rely upon Christian concepts in forging our nation? Personal weaknesses or mistakes of the founders only show that all men have sinned.

Another salient but frequently avoided fact is that the founding generation of Americans warned continually of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, from which their own fathers had fled to find freedom on the shores of the New World.

Thus, many statements which Thomas Jefferson or other founders made–for example, decrying religious bondage– had more often to do with Catholicism  than New Testament Christianity.  That they were not precise in their delineations is not to be taken to say that they feared pure Christianity.

For example, read what Thomas Jefferson wrote to Benjamin Rush in April of 1803. Jefferson refers to himself as “a Christian” in distinction to the “corruptions of Christianity.” “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”

Jefferson many times referred to religious doctrines that did not originate in the Bible, but in the chair of Rome.

Jefferson’s Bible

It is also interesting that the booklet which Jefferson put together of Jesus’ teachings he himself advertised as proof that he was a “real Christian” and that those who referred to him as an “infidel” were wholly in error and motivated by doctrines which Jesus Christ Himself did not inspire. The following is from Jefferson’s letter to Charles Thomson:

“I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. It is a paradigm of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.”

To modern unbelievers who find offense in Christianity, we quote the words of Christ, “go learn what this means.” That is, instead of scouring the writings of the founders to discover a godless phrase or two, let them teach you the significance of Christianity and its beneficent influence on our nation.

Christian Nation

America was founded as a Christian Nation. This is not “Christian Nationalism” as the modern attack mischaracterizes. It refers to the fact that the principles of Christianity are those which undergirded our nation. John Adams wrote, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe that these general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

Patrick Henry was even more forthright. “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom to worship here.”

Benjamin Morris, a second-generation American, having thoroughly surveyed the founding generation for these same ideals, summarized it this way. “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 the founders even referred to America as a “Christian Republic” because they considered our form of government to be an outgrowth of Christianity and freedom.

It would be well for modern professorships and their blind followers to actually study what the founders had in mind on this topic rather than being so jaundiced against Christianity and the Bible. Perhaps that would keep them from “being sick.”

Bill Lockwood: Thugs Rule in Minnesota: Due Process of Law? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Earlier this week, 20-year-old Duante Wright, an African-American, was shot and killed by a police officer in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. As has unfortunately become commonplace in America, the black community rioted and looted throughout the Minneapolis area in response. As of this writing, multiple arrests have been made as looting continues.

Open lawlessness is disturbing on many levels. Leaving aside the fact that Duante Wright was apparently accidentally shot—due to the fact that he, with outstanding warrants, was resisting arrest while struggling with the police officer—succeeding events demonstrate that we now have “mob rule” in the United States.

City manager of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Curt Bagoney, tried to reason with the mob. In an open press conference he suggested that the woman police officer, Kim Potter, who shot Duante Wright, “deserves due process.” That would be a fair hearing.

But we live in a planned chaotic-socialistic society where our political authorities have empowered and enabled minority mobs to hold law-abiding citizens hostage by unrestrained violence. Bagoney’s judicious words cannot be allowed. We must have Kim Potter’s head on a platter—and now.

Curt Bagoney lost his job, as the City Council terminated his services and salary. His firing portends the end of America.

According to the Star Tribune, a Twin Cities paper, at least one city council member voted to oust Bagoney from the job he’s held since 2006 not because he had done a bad job, or because he’d done anything wrong, but “because she feared for her property and retaliation by protestors if she had voted to keep him.” Council Member Kris Lawrence-Anderson said, “I didn’t want repercussions at a personal level.”

The situation is so hopeless that, even though police officer Kim Potter resigned her position, Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon, who also called for “due process,” has been forced by mobsters to step down.

Thugs rule in Minnesota. The political powers-that-be at higher levels apparently want it this way. This is why City Councils, Mayors, and local Police Departments, cannot seem to stop it.

Due Process

Due Process of Law, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, simply means that the government promises legal and judicial fair play with its citizens. Normally, “due process” is divided into procedural and substantive. It is the former that is under consideration here.

Procedural “due process” refers to legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. It includes opportunity for an open hearing, confrontation of cross-examination, and availability of counsel. This is why our legal system provides, at taxpayer expense, legal counsel for those who cannot afford it.

This was not an invention by our Founders. It is part of the principles laid out in the Bible. For example, one of the commands: “Thou shalt not commit murder” (Ex. 20:13) is fairly straightforward. Punishment for this crime is the death penalty (Ex. 21:12).

But what about the case of “manslaughter?” According to Deuteronomy 19:2-4 there were six cities of refuge to which a person who had committed manslaughter might flee in order to have a fair trial. If the accused was found innocent of “murder” then the option would be to remain in that city of refuge until the death of the High Priest. What is this? Due Process.

Even a trial itself, in the Mosaic Code, was governed by due process. Fairness. The procedures required more than one witness (Num. 35:30) in order to convict a person of a crime. One witness alone was insufficient (Deut. 17:6). This is procedural due process.

The extreme importance of “due process” cannot be overstated. One of the solid underpinnings of our entire nation and even western culture is fairness in dealing with the accused.

This is why the Constitution binds the government itself, and requires that it must follow what might be called “duly-elected laws” when it seeks to restrict freedoms and liberty. It is, as billofrights.org writes, “a blend of rights, customs, procedures, and legal traditions that have evolved over centuries alongside our modern understanding of the requirements of the concept of ‘justice.’”

This keystone of society is in danger of disappearing. America is on the cusp of losing this cornerstone of liberty. And if the cornerstones go, so does our liberty.

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

Posted on by Leave a comment

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.

John Kachelman, Jr.: 2020 the “Perfect Storm” facing our Republic—
All three branches of our Government are in peril 5 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by John Kachelman, Jr.

Historical Discovery…An election in 1917 forecast the election in 2020! Here are the elements from 103 years ago!
• Years of preparatory work were spent in misleading and misdirectional propaganda
• Contested voting results marred the election’s finality and ultimately its dismissal
• Claims that the poor were going to be disenfranchised of their votes
• The scheduled voting was extended by two months
• Division, violence, slander and libel were widespread
• A delusional/cunning/conniving campaign made unrealistic promises to win the population
• Anger and mob violence were deliberately stirred against “privilege,” possessions, and status
• Deceptive claims persuaded the “majority” they were robbed of their electoral victory
• Inevitable civil war was sparked at the election’s end because Lenin’s group failed to win the majority
• The dissolution of the old State and a “transformation” of the new system was promised to lead to true socialism but it brought history’s worst and longest ruling tyrant

And here is how it happened…

Although often used in our American English language the idiom “the perfect storm” is a new phrase. This phrase originated in a conversation between Boston National Weather Service forecaster Robert Case and author Sebastian Junger. Junger was researching his non-fiction book The Perfect Storm, published in 1997 and later produced as a movie. The narrative detailed the fishing vessel Andrea Gail which sank killing all six crew. The event documented a set of meteorological circumstances that occur only once every 50 to 100 years.

This idiom has been incorporated into the American English refers to a rare combination of elements, circumstances, or events that meld together to form a fearful and extremely unpleasant problem. It is used in a negative sense and anything described as a “perfect storm” is seen to have catastrophically bad consequences. One commonly hears it today in think-tank strategies playing out hypothetical scenarios. Webster defines the terms as “a critical or disastrous situation created by a powerful concurrence of factors.”

As this article is written the American Republic is struggling with a “Perfect Storm.” And it is not a hypothetical brain-game exercise.

Here is a basic reminder of your 9th Grade American Civics materials…The Founding Fathers of our Republic designed a system of governing to prevent the evils inherent in the onerous governing systems of Europe. The Republic was to be governed in a way that the majority would have a say BUT safeguarded against a rogue majority controlling the nation. A deliberate system of “check and balances” was wisely incorporated against evil efforts to seize national control.

The ultimate safeguard was the separation of the State’s governing into three distinct bodies. While each would have an impact upon the others, that impact was deliberately limited. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Republic were designed to be independent but function with unity to guide the nation, preserve freedoms, and guard the human rights that are often disenfranchised by evil systems and philosophies. One of the greatest feats of our Republic is the exercise of individualism when these three branches of governing are properly functioning.

However, at this point in our nation’s historical narrative the “perfect storm” threatens ALL THREE of these safeguards of our Republic. And my disconcerting observation is that many prance and dance around with a Pollyannish attitude denying the reality of our current situation. The prevailing cultural concern is as absurd as the attitude of one busily rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic!

The assault on the EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The resistance has been hard at work even prior to President Trump’s inauguration. Attempts to nullify the electoral process have been constant. The evil agenda was visible. Our President has suffered evil resistance of historic proportions. The basic cause is his commitment to the U.S. Constitution. It is the unchanging Constitution that provides the legal governing making the USA an exceptional nation of individuals. This fixed and knowable Constitution gives our nation the strength and energy envied by the world and loathed by tyranny. (The Resistance/DEMS/BLM/ANTIFA demand an activist Court that will change our Republic’s basic foundational principles.)

The stated position of the resistance has been loud and long—they have robbed President Trump of his first four years as President. They have dared to present the most ridiculous reasons for his disqualification and removal. They have manipulated, deceived and extorted support for their evil agenda. They have ignited violence that has divided and destroyed the civility of the USA. Their evil purpose was to achieve the political purge of a duly elected President of the United States of America. Our President has been nominated for multiple Nobel Peace Prizes for his exceptional ability to broker true peace between Middle Eastern nations. But the resistance shrugs, forgetting that they excitedly embraced the Peace Prize awarded to Obama which is admitted now as an award for nothing! The resistance’s political maneuvering and evil mission is well documented.

Those of the resistance are described by Inspiration. Their conniving and cunning evil is a constant action seeking to destroy legitimate order. Psalm 36:4, “He plans wickedness upon his bed; He sets himself on a path that is not good; He does not despise evil.” (See also Ecclesiastes 10:20)

Even the classics describe the reality of this evil. From Stevenson’s pen we remember the confession that describes those seeking to nullify the legality of President Trump’s election. Like the pained soul of Henry Jekyll the resistance can confess, “I lost my identity beyond redemption…had I risked the experiment while under the empire of generous or pious aspirations, all must have been otherwise, and from these agonies of death and birth, I had come forth an angel instead of a fiend…At that time my virtue slumbered; my evil, kept awake by ambition, was alert and swift to seize the occasion.” Perhaps the most troubling reference that Stevenson’s pen gives to the resistance character states, “O my poor old Harry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan’s signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend.”

Inspiration and the Classics unite in describing today’s controlling evil that occupies every thought of the Progressive/Liberal/BLM/ANTIFA “resistance” as “Satan’s signature upon a face.”
This is the first element of today’s “Perfect Storm.” There are two more elements…
The assault upon the Legislative Branch

It is the Legislative Branch of our Republic’s government that involves the citizenry in the governing process. The population’s vote is a significant and treasured freedom. That vote expresses the desires of each State of the Union and is recorded by the Electoral College so that a free election is not controlled by a militant mob. The Founding Fathers wisely saw the potential of a militant group manipulating and coercing control. The establishment of the Electoral College was a masterful move safeguarding the Republic’s freedoms. By this method the most populous States are equal with the least populous—true equality.

The 2020 General Election is recognized as a critical point in our nation’s history. It can be said that every election is critical and previous elections have suffered the militancy of Progressives/Liberals attempting to undermine the Constitutional foundation of our nation. These past challenges failed because the general population was aware of the evil being campaigned and were educated regarding the safeguards of our Constitution. But the context has dramatically changed for the 2020 General Election. In this current election the Constitutional safeguards are condemned and the population is ignorant of just how fragile individual freedom is. It appears that many have been groomed and are eager to believe the Progressive/Liberal/Democratic lies and embrace anarchy. This is not a new situation. History is amazing as it details how the past continues to explain the present.

Consider the Russian Revolution. I offer just a scant discussion on Lenin’s role in this aspect of Russian politics. Hopefully I will have opportunity to offer a more complete discussion. Consider the first “free election” that Russia experienced. It was held in October or November 1917 (the month depends upon which calendar you consult). Lenin promised a “free” election where all votes would be equal and each citizen would be heard. The election was scheduled and a number of political parties provided the voters a choice. Among the many parties were two dominating parties: the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (Lenin’s Bolsheviks).

The propaganda fueling this election is intriguing. Lenin had confidence that his party would be an overwhelming victor. He was convinced that his pamphleteering during his exile was persuasive. He was convinced that only he knew best what the poor citizens needed for happiness in life. Lenin had devised a governing system by which the State would help the poor citizen to have free health care, free food, personal land ownership, and the erasure of all class “privileges” by redistributing wealth/financial resources/personal property. Under Lenin’s control there would be no more denial of personal rights, no more prejudice of persons, and no more unjust financial levels. All would be totally “equal” IF Lenin’s perfect Revolutionary State was allowed to transform into the Marxist utopia.
Here is where history becomes instructive regarding the Legislative Body of the State.

When the Tsar abdicated, the Russian Provisional Government was formed. Its purpose was to organize the free elections for the Russian Constituent Assembly. The provisional government lasted only eight months and was replaced by the Bolsheviks. A significant footnote to this period is that the Provisional Government was unable to make decisive policy decisions due to political factionalism and a breakdown of state structures. The anarchy fomented by Lenin and the Bolsheviks rendered a civil governing impossible. Whatever legislative bills were presented were instantly killed by opposition. Revolutionary unrest fueled violence. This was a deliberate design of non-cooperation and pure resistance!

The deliberate campaign for divisiveness and refusal to perform governing duties is a sobering similarity to the resistance in modern day American politics. Lenin’s free election was conducted but here are some troubling facts from its history:

1) The election was designed to be held on specific dates BUT some argued that the peasants in the outlying territory needed more time to get their votes counted. So, the ballot counting was extended in some places by TWO MONTHS!

2) Throughout the 1917 campaign Lenin argued that the citizens deserved a government that represented “the proletariat’s interests” because, in his estimation, all other governments represented the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Lenin argued that the rich would never give up their “privileges” and so the soviets would need to seize power by violence. Lenin’s propaganda fueled the division that would destroy the Russian nation. He urged violence nurtured by envy and jealousy arguing that some had “privileged status” that others did not and this great “inequity” could only be removed with a violent overthrow.

3) Even though the first free election included a number of different political parties, Lenin was confident that his Bolsheviks would win. That did not happen. The final tabulation exposed Lenin as suffering defeat and his Bolsheviks only garnered 23.26% of the vote. The Socialist-Revolutionaries emerged with 37.61% of the vote. Lenin was unhappy and contested the results! Lenin refused to concede protesting the legitimacy of the election.

4) The objective of the resistance was a one-party government and an absolute silencing of opposition. “It is the duty of the revolution to put an end to compromise, and to put an end to compromise means taking the path of socialist revolution” Lenin, Speech On The Agrarian Question November 14 (1917).

Carefully consider how Lenin embraced the freedom of voting while masterfully disguising his evil objective of silencing the opposition and developing a one-party ruling government.

After the election results were announced, Lenin stood and revealed the coup. The results were called flawed. Those in opposition were eventually murdered. Lenin instituted his famous “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Lenin said this was the best course for the average citizen and this dictatorship would dissolve when all privileged distinctions were erased, all wealth inequities removed, and all land ownership seized. And the Russian population permitted this dictatorship to exist!
When applied to the 2020 General Election in the USA, this historical anecdote should sound national alarms! The very concepts that Lenin used to nullify the free election of Russia in 1917 are being used in today’s election. In fact, some of the very words and phrases that were used by Lenin are parroted by the Democratic Progressives today and characterize the membership of Democratic Party in the USA!

When the election process of our governing Constitution is compromised and dismissed as archaic and inapplicable THEN our nation has lost the compass for safely navigating the treacherous existence in this world.

The assault upon the JUDICIAL Branch

History reminds its students that the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices were forever changed in 1987 with Joe Biden’s Judiciary’s malevolent confirmation hearing of Judge Robert Bork. Biden was campaigning to be the Democratic Presidential candidate (which he would lose to Dukakis because of Biden’s plagiarism). In 1987 the custom was for such hearings to last two days or less. Under Biden’s chairmanship Bork’s hearing was weaponized and lasted TWELVE days. Such a reprehensible action has earned its own idiom in American language—“so and so was ‘Borked’.”

The 1987 Democratic Party’s politicizing and weaponizing the confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court appointments opened the floodgates for the most contentious events in the governing of the United States of America. One only needs to go back to the recent hearings to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. The personal slander, insidious innuendos, manufactured complaints and a host of other evil actions have become accepted political weapons (Or as Speaker Pelosi remarked, “arrows in our quiver”). In past times it was customary that the sitting President was respected and his nominations were accorded with approval, even if the conservatives knew they were approving a Progressive/Liberal who despised the literalist view of the U.S. Constitution they voted for the confirmation. But now there is a horrid specter of divisiveness and vindictiveness enveloping the process.

The General Election of 2020 spotlights the tragic devolving of the status of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is suggested by some, with validity, that the Supreme Court is no longer focused upon apolitical justice but has assumed an active role in establishing law that the U.S. Constitution reserves only for the Legislative Branch.

The Democrats/Progressives/Liberals have announced their intent to “pack” the Supreme Court with Justices who disrespect the U.S. Constitution. They want a left-leaning Court that will sanction the total dismemberment of the constitutional statutes that made America a great nation. The far-left Daily Kos cautioned Republicans that a “future government controlled by Democrats is likely to pursue — court-packing —  as the best way to rebuff a conservative Court majority viewed as illegitimate.” Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told voters during an October 2018 campaign event that Democrats should “pack the Supreme Court of the United States of America” after taking the House, Senate, and Presidency. Leading Democrats also warned that if the justices issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling, and if Democrats win the White House and the Senate in 2020, then they will fundamentally remake the High Court.

Former President Franklin Roosevelt issued this same threat in the 1930s after facing legal obstacles with his New Deal and subsequently “threatened to expand the Court by six seats for a new total of 15 justices so that he could get the rulings he wanted.” The American people, however, rejected his threat, leading to massive Republican victories in the 1938 midterm elections.

Former Democrat presidential candidates Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and now vice-presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced that they were open to reshaping the court. “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris said, according to Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

During the summer of 2020 several major progressive groups, including Take Back the Court, Demand Justice, Progressive Change Institute, and the Sunrise Movement, signed a letter declaring their support for increasing the number of justices by “at least” two seats. The resistance wrote in part: “The fastest, most effective way to make the court representative of all Americans is to enact legislation increasing the size of the Court by at least two seats, and to quickly fill those seats with justices who will safeguard our democracy.” Note: In the context of this reference it is best to remember Lenin’s manipulative ploy that his “free” election would best represent “all Russians”?

In March 2019, President Trump astutely dismissed mounting calls from his Democratic opponents to pack the Supreme Court. “The only reason they’re doing that is they want to try and catch up, so if they can’t catch up through the ballot box by winning an election, they want to try doing it in a different way,” he added.
The late Justice Ginsburg balked at the proposition of packing the Supreme Court. “It would make the Court look partisan,” the late justice told National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg last year.
The Judicial Branch of the government is to interpret laws respecting the United States Constitution’s limits. Once this unbiased governing is compromised, there is no lawful regulations for civility in our nation.

Concluding Thoughts…

This is where the United States of America is positioned as the General Election of November 2020 nears. A discord and division prevail that has never existed. This violence has been stoked with bitterness. The Progressives/Democratic Party/BLM/ANTIFA assure us that regardless of the election there will be violence. We are being conditioned to think that electoral results will take weeks or months to be validated and even then, they will be challenged. The vitriol marking the battleground is undeniable. Following Lenin’s example in 1917 the Democrats have been told never to concede. The results are already announced, “Furious Democrats are considering total war — profound changes to two branches of government, and even adding stars to the flag (i.e. adding the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as States thus insuring Democrats have two solid additions to their column) — if Republicans jam through a Supreme Court nominee then lose control of the Senate.”

As the National Election of 2020 approaches we read of violence, destruction and carnage in the public sphere…Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent death sparked a political firestorm, as Republicans prepare for a contentious, pre-election confirmation showdown and some Democrats threaten to, quite literally, burn the country down.
The ”Perfect Storm” facing the Republic of the United States of America has formed and threatens the three pillars of our civility.

After Lenin’s Bolsheviks permitted a “free election” they moved quickly to strangle freedoms. Lenin’s opinion of the poor proletariat having the right to vote for individual choices morphed into a ruling class identified as the “Politburo.” The first Politburo consisted of: Lenin, Trotsky, Krestinsky, Kamenev, and Stalin. Lenin died. Trotsky was exiled to Mexico and was murdered. Krestinsky and Kamenev were assassinated. That left Stalin. Stalin manipulated the bureaucratic apparatus and seized power. By the 1930s, Stalin had transformed the Politburo into the supreme executive and legislative body of the Communist party and the Soviet government. Stalin was in command of its membership, decisions, and debates. The party congress now not only did not elect the politburo, but its own membership was fully controlled by the politburo. Not only had Lenin’s vision of a one-party political government been achieved but now it became a one-man political government! Individualism had been erased. The individual had ceased to exist and all had become “the State.”
The ”Perfect Storm” in Russia’s history resulted in the totalitarian reign of Stalin’s terror. Such is the conclusion of Russia’s first free election.

What will YOU do regarding the “Perfect Storm” in which our Republic is now struggling?

Please read the historical documentation available and you will realize 
this is not a conspiracy theory but a historical constant!

John Kachelman, Jr. is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.

Bill Lockwood: Judicial Supremacy? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Thomas Jefferson warned us that the Supreme Court itself had the potential to distort the original intent of the Founders by using “Judicial Review.” He saw that the Court might begin creating law instead of merely interpreting the laws passed by the legislature and applying them in the cases that came before it. Late in life he wrote:

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

While there are certainly other factors involved in America’s decline from its original constitutional model, Jefferson’s admonition strikes at the heart of the issues involved today.

With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and President Trump’s constitutional role in filling that vacancy, the war that is shaping up in Washington, D.C. is ominous. Showing complete disdain for our Constitution, the frenzied left is promising such outlandish measures as bringing impeachment charges against our president solely for the purpose of hindering him from doing his Constitutional duty.

Let’s look, however, behind the mayhem to see the foundational issues involved.

Constitutional Nonsense

One rude and reckless blogger posted this on Facebook. “With justice Ginsberg passing today, all my female and minority friends better vote like your life depends upon it … these … Republicans are going to have you barefoot and in the kitchen with zero rights over your genitals and put minorities ‘back in their place’ in society …!!”

It is difficult to imagine a more frantic and ignorant statement than this. But it does highlight some major erroneous thought processes that live on the socialist left. Before noting them it is worth mentioning that the comment above focuses upon the issue of abortion. That is noteworthy because it is the lefties and socialists in America who like to say, “You conservatives are a ONE ISSUE group of people—always mentioning abortion!” In point of fact, that is inaccurate—however, surrounding the war pertaining to Ginsberg’s replacement, just who is riveting attention to one single issue? The Liberal Left.

Judicial Supremacy

Judicial Supremacy is a “radical over-extension”, indeed, perversion – “of the legitimate doctrines of ‘judicial review and stare decisis (‘to stand by matters that have been settled’). In brief, the modern doctrine of “judicial supremacy” is as follows: (1) That the Supreme Court has the authority to construe the Constitution in issues that come before the Court and that that meaning of the Constitution, instead of applying only against the parties that come before the Court, applies against everyone in the country situated in similar circumstances.

(2) That an opinion of the Supreme Court can only be modified or cancelled by a later opinion of the Supreme Court or by a formal amendment to the Constitution.

(3) Nothing can be done to any justice of the Court as a consequence of any opinion handed down, no matter how fraudulent or willfully false it may be.

(4) Most importantly: Judicial Supremacy assumes that the meaning of the Constitution’s provisions are: (i) largely unknown and even unknowable, unless that provision becomes illuminated by the Supreme Court itself; (ii) politically plastic, in that the meaning of those provisions can, and even should, change from time to time as the Supreme Court deems advisable.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

Like liberal views of the Bible, so these views of the Constitution and of the role of the Supreme Court land us in nothing less than an oligarchy whereby we are ruled by a board of nine judges—not the Constitution itself. And in case of a 5-4 decision by the Court, the fate of the nation can be decided by only one single judge. Little wonder therefore, that the Political War of 2020 is heightening.

First, the Constitution had a Definite Meaning Before the Supreme Court was Formed. The Constitution and all of its provisions were well known by the people much before the Supreme Court was formed. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791. However, the Supreme Court was not formed until 1789 and the first cases reached it in August of 1791. In other words, the Supreme Court did not even exist when the Constitution was ratified. Are we to believe that it was passed and ratified by “We the People” but that they had no idea as to its meaning until nine black-robed justices began handing down decisions?

Further, public officeholders have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution” and the president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”—no person could honestly have taken this oath before the formation and decisions of the Supreme Court if “Judicial Supremacy” be true.

Second, Judicial Supremacy is Self-Contradictory. Article 3 of the Constitution covers the Judicial Branch. “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 2 describes the cases that come before the Supreme Court. Those who favor the modern doctrine of “Judicial Supremacy” point to this Section to establish it. But that presupposes that we are able to comprehend the meaning of its provisions without Supreme Court clarification.

This is the same fundamental contradiction made by the Roman Church when seeking to establish papal supremacy. Catholic defenders run to Matthew 16:16-18 in an effort to establish the doctrine in the minds of doubters. However, this maneuver assumes that one may read and understand the text without papal assistance. In point of fact, the text actually teaches no such thing as papal supremacy any more than Article 3 gives foundation for Judicial Supremacy.

Third, the Constitution is Self-Defining. One is able to read and understand the meaning of the text without assistance from an “inspired” Court of Nine. If there are challenges to interpretation, one need only read The Federalist Papers, the commentary composed by those who actually wrote the Constitution, to determine its meaning. As a matter of fact, it was upon this basis, by the notes put together in articles by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, that the colonies learned and accepted the Constitution to begin with.

There is a frenzy of activity surrounding the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, but the real reason the Democrat/Socialists of America are waging war is found in the following statement from the Tenth Amendment Center. “Progressives want a living, breathing Constitution because they want to mold society into their own image. They crave power. Originalism restrains power.” Without rule of law, government becomes arbitrary and despotic. Exactly where the Socialists will take us.

 

 

 

Bill Lockwood: “Mother Earth is Angry?” 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, tells Americans that the raging wildfires that have been burning in her home state of California, are due to a cryptic message that “Mother Earth” is sending Americans. “Mother Earth is angry” she warns. “She’s telling us—whether she’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is … that the climate crisis is real and has an impact.”

California, Washington, and Oregon have been recently devastated by wildfires. There are currently 29 major wildfires in the Golden State alone, burning an area of more than 4,800 square miles, the AP reported. As of September 14, 35 people have died in the out-of-control wildfires.

What is of more than passing interest is Pelosi’s personification of “Mother Earth” as being “angry” with America, presumably for being so non-cooperative with the United Nations’ globalist agenda on the Environment.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

First, Climate Alarmism is a Socialist Political Plot to Transfer Wealth from America to Third World Countries.  Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new president, refused to allow the United Nations’ COP 25 conference to be held in his country last December, forcing the global socialists to meet in Madrid, Spain. Brazil’s foreign minister, Ernesto Araujo called Climate Alarmism a “Marxist plot” to undermine the West and build up Communist China.

When one reads the UN “Paris Agreement” that was adopted at the UN COP21 Conference, the “Marxist plot” is plainly visible. Setting up boards for “global governance” while finalizing “rules” for a “global common market,” the UN master plan promises to soak the American taxpayer to help pay people in the undeveloped part of the world to “save the climate.”

The UN Boss, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, formerly of Socialist International, has openly declared that “climate action” offers a “compelling path to transform our world.” This will involve planetary taxes levied by a world government upon the United States because of our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). These monies will not only strangle our own industry, but be put into a slush fund to pay off dictators in underdeveloped countries.

Second, there is little science is Climate Alarmism. Dr. William Happer, an internationally renown Princeton physicist, recently spoke at COP25. He declared “We are here under false pretenses, wasting our time talking about a non-existent climate emergency.” Previously he had stated that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be good for the planet and its population. “It’s hard to understand how much further the shrillness can go, as this started out as global warming, then it was climate change or global weirding, now it is climate crisis and climate emergency. What next? But stick around, it will happen.”

Happer is not the only world-class scientist who warns that America is being fooled. Retired MIT Meteorology professor Richard Lindzen has pooh-poohed the entire Climate Alarmism as having little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Socialist politics, that is, promoted and endorsed by the Democratic Party in the United States.

Steven Koonin, former U.S. Department of Energy Undersecretary, has written that climate science isn’t, in fact, settled and that we lack the knowledge needed to make sound climate policy (The Epoch Times, Sep. 9-15, 2020). In one article Koonin wrote:

The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researches challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances, but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades.

Third, the American Left has been moving more closely to ancient paganism. One of the most remarkably outstanding features of Pelosi’s dire warning as she “speaks” for “Mother Earth” is this: she attributes goddess-like status on the planet which is messaging us about our climate sins. This is plainly a religious movement. And this, from the same crowd which has flagrantly ridiculed Christians for remotely suggesting that such things as the AIDS epidemic is a retribution from God upon America for its embrace of homosexuality. The legs of the lame are not equal.

Pelosi’s Paganism is idolatry. Idolatry is broadly defined as “the worship of idols, or the act of ascribing to things and persons properties which are peculiar to God alone.” The components of pagan idolatry is a View of the Past (A Cosmogony: how we came to be here); View of the Present (How the world works, including a value system); A View of the Future (What is the end game—the goal). Climate alarmists display all three.

One of the ancient pagan religions in the Old Testament was the worship of Moloch. Moloch, or Molech (1 Kings 11:7) was the god of the Ammonite people who lived next door to Israel, just as Chemosh was the god of Moab.

These gods were worshipped at “high places” throughout the Old Testament period. Connected with these gods was the pantheon of the Canaanites who honored Baal as one of their gods. These idolaters considered the seasonal changes as reflecting their ancient myths and consequently worshipped nature. More horrific still was the fact that these pagan religions all practiced child sacrifice, euphemistically mentioned in the Bible as “passing their children through the fire” (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 18:10).

Ahaz, for example, king of Judah in the 8th century B.C., is said to have made “his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations, whom Jehovah cast out from before the children of Israel” (2 Kings 16:3). 2 Chronicles 28:3 confirms the account, adding that there was more than one son whom Ahaz sacrificed. “He burned incense in the valley of the sons of Hinnom (outside the walls of Jerusalem), and burnt his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom Jehovah cast out before the bible children of Israel.” 

Jeremiah, the prophet of God, who would come a bit later, stood at the valley of Hinnom and condemned it in chapter 19 of his book. “Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, that they know now, they and their fathers and the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind …” therefore, “I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again.”

If “Mother Earth” is angry, Nancy Pelosi, perhaps this question should be asked. “Why has she not already been propitiated by the millions of children aborted in America, encouraged and financed by the Democrat Party?” There is no difference in the slaughter of the unborn, overseen by socialists and High Priestesses such as Nancy Pelosi, and the sacrifice of children to Moloch.

A better question is: Isn’t it past time for America to give up its pagan errors and return to Almighty God? 

Bill Lockwood: Socialism is the Gradual Loss of Freedom 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Private property is an essential element of man’s freedom. Biblical injunctions not to steal (Exodus 20:15) imply the right to private property as an extension of my labor. And, people have a right to enjoy the fruit of their labor. Frederic Bastiat, the French economist and statesman (1801-1850) summarized God-given rights as “Life, Liberty and Property” and noted that these do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, life, liberty and property existed before hand which caused men to make laws in the first place.

Cultural turmoil begins when “the Law” or its enforcer—the “government”–turns into an instrument of plunder to redistribute my earnings to others. This is precisely what has occurred in America. Amity Shlaes, in her new book, Great Society: A New History, recounts that during Lyndon Johnson’s implementation of his socialist welfare-state “Great Society,” one of the modernist thinkers involved with his administration was Charles Reich, a young law professor at Yale and former clerk to the liberal Supreme Court justice Hugo Black.

“To help the poor, Reich turned old property rights arguments on its head…Payments [of welfare] were a right, not a privilege. Reich called what the poor or old received ‘new property.’” In other words, government assumed the right to decree that other people have a right to my private property—the fruit of my labor. This is the essence of the Welfare State.

Bastiat reflected on this perversion—for perversion it is. “It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunders.” This insight reaches right into the current political climate of the American welfare state proudly trumpeted by both parties, Democrat and Republican.

If one doubts that outright plunder is occurring in America fostered by the government itself, just try Bastiat’s test. “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other person to whom it does not belong. See of the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime …”

Our institutions of welfare, HUD housing, Medicaid, Medicare, green energy, public education, suggested reparations, even quota systems in hiring, firing, and punishment–and a host of other programs of which time would fail to list– are all results of plunder by the federal government—and all completely unconstitutional.

Consequences

What are the consequences when this occurs?

“In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”

Exactly. Talk today about “social justice” is nothing but just that—talk. It is not “justice” neither is it sociable.

Second, and most importantly here, this creeping socialism equates to a gradual loss of freedom. When decisions of the individual are supplanted by decisions from the government, this is a loss of freedom. “Powerful government, by its very nature, always has and always will tend to make itself more powerful and more dictatorial” (The Ethics of Capitalism: A Study in Economic Principles and Human Well-Being, Chamber of Commerce of the United States: Washington, D.C., 1960). “When government gains control over the livelihood of individuals, national planning can only be carried out by subjecting the lives of individuals to control or regimentation.”

What inevitably occurs in this type of a climate is the decline of enterprise which entails the loss of inventiveness and improvements. “It means less variety in life, and variety is a large, although often unrecognized, element in a high standard of living.” Like a huge snake coiled around the breast of a person that gradually squeezes out the life, so socialism does to a nation.

In his blockbuster book, The Problem with Socialism, professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, exposes how this slow fade in the economy worked in Sweden when socialists implemented their plans. “Socialism nearly wrecked Sweden, and free market reforms are finally bringing its economy back from the brink of disaster.”

Starting in the 1930’s, Swedish politicians became “infatuated with fascist-style, socialist ‘planning.’ … Government spending as a percentage of GDP rose from what would today seem a relatively modest 20% in 1950 to more than 50% by 1975. Taxes, public debt, and the number of government employees expanded relentlessly. Swedes were, in essence, living off of the hard work, investments, and entrepreneurship of previous generations.”

America has unfortunately, copied the Swedish model. But what happened in Sweden? The Scandinavians could not avoid economic reality. “It is impossible to maintain a thriving economy with a regime of high taxes, a wasteful welfare state that pays people not to work, and massive government spending and borrowing.”

By the 1980’s, Sweden’s collapse of economic growth and a government attempt to jump-start the economy with a massive expansion of credit resulted in “economic chaos” complete with stock market bubbles that burst, and interest rates “that the Swedish central bank pushed up to 500 percent.” By 1990 Sweden had fallen from fourth to twentieth place in international income comparisons.”

It is a slow road back for Sweden. And the same will be for America. But the point remains that socialism resembles a slow bleeding of prosperity, liberty, and right to property.

John Kachelman, Jr.: Get your goggles on! 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by John Kachelman, Jr.

Absolute conformity. Unquestioned submission. Pliant consent.

These are all qualities that a Totalitarian State demand and will definitely punish non-compliance. Just search Communist China and read the interesting evolution of Mao’s China with the ordinances controlling approved clothing so that all would wear exactly the same thing. In the early 90’s I met a person who has been a very good friend for decades. He began business in the newly CIS by bartering and trading with westerners who were coming into the CIS. He said that his greatest success was trading USSR memorabilia for blue jeans! He said that no one in the former USSR could get blue jeans as they were a dictate from the State that depicted the degeneracy of the west.

The historical surrender of personal rights and individual freedoms is a fascinating study of human behavior. It is amazingly simple to get an entire population group to surrender individualism because they want to become an accepted part of the “blob.” Those who do not conform are treated horribly, cussed constantly and pressured to break their resistance. Total compliance results in a robotic population who is easily controlled for the State’s Elite. There is ALWAYS a small group in control. There is NEVER total equality and egalitarianism regardless of the persuasive propaganda!
The United States of America is about to cross the threshold where personal rights, individualism and true liberty will be left behind. We, as a nation, are on the cusp of Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD. This book was written in 1931. I read it in high school in 1970. It once seemed a cleaver Science Fiction theme. However, now its cleverness is in its troubling prescience.

With these points in mind, look carefully at our current society. When mandatory face masks were first suggested many sounded alarms and the issue died down. But then even though the hospitalizations and deaths of COVID-19 dramatically decreased, we were told the infections were really the major threat. Once again mandatory face masks were introduced and slowly, little-by-little cities and states began to issue mandatory face masks ordinances. President Trump has stubbornly refused to issue a national ordinance and I hope he remains stubbornly opposed but he is dealing with unbelievable pressures to do otherwise.

In regard to the face mask issue many naively say, “What’s the BIG problem? It’s only a face mask? Just go along with the State because it is looking out for YOUR best interests.”

We are now told when to wear face masks and how to wear face masks. Individualism is threatened and incredible pressure is focused toward those who do not wear a face mask even in the “optional” locations. Individualism is thus crushed! Now there is a fervid discussion about the color that is best, the model that is best. Some are even suggesting that the Federal State dictate the color, model, and all elements associated with the face mask. If this is allowed to happen, then citizens will be punished for wearing any face mask that is different. Individualism will thus be erased!
The problem IS the State! True history is inerrant. True history documents the subtle and slow surrender of individualism and personal rights and absorption into a totalitarian system where the individual has absolutely no choice—all morality is determined; all clothing is determined; all religion is determined; all dietary menus are determined. It begins slow and subtle but the end is surrender of all control!

God warns us, “The prudent sees the evil and hides himself, but the naive go on, and are punished for it (Proverbs 22:3).
So here is where we are on July 30, 2020…Americans have been incessantly propagandized for months being told that face masks are essential to “flattening the curve.” We were told that wearing these for two-weeks will show a dramatic decline in infections.” In some locations face masks have been work well past the “two-week” period. Just how verifiable is this face mask theory? The infections are rising greater than before the face mask ordinance! So the narrative has to change… “we won’t know the impact for several more weeks but face masks are still required ”!

But today another element is injected into the “preventive” narrative…“If you have goggles or an eye shield, you should use it,” Fauci, 79, the top US infectious disease expert, told ABC News Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton on Wednesday. When asked if eye protection will become a formal recommendation at some point, he said, “It might, if you really want perfect protection of the mucosal surfaces.” (New York Post, “Fauci urges Americans to wear goggles for added COVID-19 protection”)

Rod Serling and his writers of The Twilight Zone anticipated the horrors of mandated conformity and the surrender of personal rights and individualism. Go online and watch these two poignant episodes and keep in mind the “face-masks and eye-goggles”!  “Eye Of The Beholder” and “Number 12 Looks Just Like You”

So America, as you put on your face mask to go to the store put on your shopping list to buy some eye goggles. I am not sure what model, color or any other aspect of the goggles you should wear. But, as our nation marches into totalitarian control by the State we will all be goose-stepping with face masks and eye goggles!
The most amazing footnote that history will record…the World Power was conquered by face masks and eye goggles!
“Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them” (Psalm 2:1-4).

John Kachelman, Jr. is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.

« Older Entries