Tag Archives: The Bible

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Bill Lockwood: Black Lives Matter: A Communist-Inspired Movement Fomenting Revolution! 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

Black Lives Matter (#BLM) is a communist-inspired movement which, in the words of Larry Grathwohl, former FBI informant in the Weather Underground, exploits blacks and other minorities groups to turn them into revolutionaries fighting for socialism in the United States. The death of George Floyd is not the cause of the burning of America but the excuse.

This is not to say that white youth have not also been ignorantly sucked into the communist revolution, for many have been trained by Marxist professors at our state universities. The coalescing of all of these young radicals who are agitating for an “Abolish the Police” movement has been occurring since the 1960’s.

As stated on the Freedom Road Socialist Organization website (which changed its name in 2019 to simply Liberation Road), “The FRSO is recruiting and building towards the creation of a new Communist Party based on Marxism-Leninism. This is necessary to lead the way to socialism and liberation.” The FRSO is the “guiding force” behind Black Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter

BLM launched in 2013 with the Twitter hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter, following the George Zimmerman acquittal in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. It was founded by three radical leftist women; Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi. All three of these founders work for “front groups” of the FRSO.

Cullors describes herself as a “working class, queer, black woman.” At a 2015 Netroots Nation conference, she led chants shouting, “If I die in police custody, burn everything down … rise the f____ up! That is the only way the m_______f_______s like you will listen!” (Accuracy in Media expose).

Cullors was trained by Eric Mann, a former Weather Underground communist who exhorts his followers to become “anti-racist, anti-imperialist.”

Garza claims that she is “queer.” She is an Oakland-based writer whose articles have been featured in major Main Stream Media publications. Her claim is that the “tragic deaths of Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown were catalysts for the emergence of the BLM movement.” Both of those young men, however, were shown to be street thugs who were killed by individuals protecting their own lives from their vicious assaults.

Tometi is the daughter of illegal aliens from Nigeria. She worked for the communist-founded ACLU while in college and is currently executive director of Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI).

These women are joined by Nelini Stamp, who popularized the phrase “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” which was a manufactured lie emerging from the Michael Brown case. Nelini Stamp has said: “we are actually trying to change the capitalist system we have today because it is not working for any of us.”

Freedom Road Socialist Organization

The FRSO is a “hereditary descendant of the New Communist Movement inspired by Chinese dictator Mao Zedong and the many communist revolutionaries occurring throughout the world in the 1960’s and 70’s” (James Simpson, Capitalist Research Center).

In 2016, Freedom Road mourned the death of Tim Thomas, one of its leaders. The blogpost stated that Tim “was a revolutionary organizer, writer and educator … At George Washington University, Tim became active in the Black Liberation and Marxist movement that remained his life-long passion….Tim was a leader of the SOBU (Student Organization for Black Unity) and later YOBU (Youth Organization for Black Unity).”

Tim Thomas, the statement goes on to eulogize, “joined the Revolutionary Workers League in 1972 and later the League of Revolutionary Struggle (LRS), a New Communist Movement group that brought together in one organization Asian-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, African American, and white communists who shared a vision of national liberation as a critical element of communist revolution. After that group dissolved in 1990, Tim and a number of former LRS comrades came into the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, where they continue to advance the theory and practice of self-determination socialism.”

The goals of FRSO as well as BLM are pretty clear.

The FRSO began officially in 1985 when two smaller organizations, Proletarian Unity League and the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters, formed the FRSO. Bot the PUL and the RWH were a part of the New Communist Movement. Other groups such as a West Coast group called the Organization for Revolutionary Unity joined hands with the FRSO through the years.

Added to that is the fact that the FRSO and BLM work primarily today through the Democratic Party. Jamala Rogers, National Executive Committee, urged her comrades to work inside the Democratic Party in a 2008 article posted on their website. “Build locally based, independent, progressive mass electoral organizations that can identify, train, and run candidates for office with the Democratic Party or independents, depending upon the situation at the local level.”

Funding & Membership

The BLM, being a spin-off of the FRSO, has had much help from communists such as Van Jones to obtain funding. Van Jones is another communist who has been given so much favorable media coverage in the MSM, even earning a place at round table discussions on a variety of news stations.

Some of the wealthy foundations which supply financial backing to BLM and FRSO as well as other satellite sister organizations spawned by this communist revolution include Ben & Jerry’s, Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Rockefeller and many of George Soros’ sponsored groups such as the Tides Foundation.

Accuracy in Media (AIM) describes the ever-changing list of communist-oriented causes now coalescing around FRSO and BLM.

BLM’s mission includes a kitchen sink of favored Left causes, including support of poverty elimination programs, prison deinstitutionalization, illegal immigration and gay rights. Highlighting FRSO’s orientation toward gay blacks, it describes how ‘Black, queer and trans folks bear a unique burden from hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us, and that is state violence.

As Vladimir Lenin stated, “We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth … We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”

Writing in 1962, biblical scholar and anti-communist lecturer, James Bales exposed in Communism: Its Faith and Fallacies, the primary goal of communists for the crumbling of America was to Incite Racial Minorities. “The Chinese Communists have also tried to incite racial minorities to rebellion” (Quoted from Soviet Russia in China, 361).

Bales observes: “For a period of time they advocated Lenin’s doctrine of so-called ‘self-determination for all racial groups.’ This was in order to weaken a nation by promising independence to each racial group within it. Thus for years in America the communists advocated the idea of a black republic in America. This they called ‘self-determination for the black belt.’”

Although this specific strategy has morphed into others, Bales warned:

The united front movement is being revived. Open and hidden communists are endeavoring to use racial problems as a means of dividing our country and making and using for their own purposes those who are blind enough to form temporary alliances with them. They are not interested in solving these problems but in weakening the country so that it will be easier for them to take over.

America has not heeded the warning. Instead, our young people continue to be indoctrinated by many public schools and universities. Even Christians and church members, coming to the “communist game” in America in the last inning, ignorantly think the death of George Floyd and its violent aftermath is all about police brutality. They tweet #BLM to join the chorus. But it is our ignorance of the real roots of what is happening in America is what will destroy us.

Bill Lockwood: Foundation of True Science 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

Christians need to recognize the foundational importance of the Bible’s doctrine of Creation.  It is not a periphery issue, but is in reality the basis of the Bible as well as true science as well.  How is the case that the Bible’s doctrine of creation is the foundation of true science?

First, scientific investigation is based upon the concept of rationality.  Rationality is simply drawing the conclusions as warranted by the evidence.  That is, the law of correct thinking.  But what is “correct thinking” if atheism and its doctrine of spontaneous generation is true?  If reason is just a physical sensation … there is no reason for the atheist or evolutionist to say that he is using his mind and the theist is not.  Matter in motion would have produced in the atheist his atheistic arguments and matter in motion would have produced in the theist his faith in theism.  There is no reason why one should be accepted as the true insight into reality over the other.  Atheism or evolutionism gives us no confidence that it could possibly be the true insight into reality.

Second, scientists admit that the foundations of true science are found in a Christian world-view. Stanley Beck, an evolutionist writing in Bioscience (1982), confessed that the basic premises of science find their foundation or origin in Christian theology.  That is to say, that since the world was created by a divine Creator and man was created in God’s image, therefore nature makes orderly sense, man is able to decipher its operations, and true science becomes possible.  If the world, on the other hand, was a mere product of jumbled masses of atoms and our brains were nothing more than jumbles of matter and electrical impulses, science itself becomes nonsense.

Third, some evolutionists confess that given evolution (as opposed to Creation), man has no free moral choice.  William Provine, who died in 2015, was a professor in the Department of ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, lectured at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1998. His remarks included the following: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) No life after death exists; 3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) No ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) Human free will is non-existent.” Provine spent the balance of his time discussing “free will” because he noted “the first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them.”

Provine was exactly right, given his naturalistic premises. There would be no such thing as free will if the general theory of evolution is true. These considerations alone ought cause professors of science today to rethink commitment to the ungodly doctrine of evolution. Creation gives man his only basis for True Science. 

Bill Lockwood: May Christians be Engaged in Politics? 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

“Politics” is one of those words that has taken on ugly connotations in almost every context in which it is used. It has the air of manipulating people for some personal gain. Indeed, one of the definitions of “politic” is “shrewd, crafty, unscrupulous.” If we leave it right there, then the issue of Christian involvement settles itself.

However, political science refers to the methods and principles of governing. When used in this sense, it is more statecraft, which is “the art of managing state affairs.” Used in this way the entire issue of Christian participation takes on a different color. Let’s back up to some basics.

Genesis Account

God created man in his own image (Gen. 1:26). Only mankind (humanity) was created by God with this “image.” This apparently refers to the capacity of humans to exercise free will; to have moral sensitivity; to manage rational behavior. The point, however, is that humankind only, of all of God’s creation, has intrinsic value. 

An extension of this value is liberty—freedom of movement and choice. This is man’s endowment from God because man cannot sustain himself without labor or work. Man is to utilize (subdue, have dominion over, Gen. 1:28) the creation to that end. The original order from the Creator was to work or labor in order to eat (Gen. 2:15-16). God’s design therefore implies liberty in order to accomplish this.  

At the same time, private property is an extension of my labor, an extension of myself. “Thou shalt not steal” implies private ownership of property. Even the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the same in 1972 in Lynch v. Household Finance. Property rights are “fundamental civil rights.” Further, the right to property is inseparable from the right to liberty. One cannot exist without the other.

What is Law?

“Law” is simply “rule of action.” Frederic Bastiat, in his classic essay The Law, wrote it best. “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” Are Christians banned from crafting laws by which to protect their God-endowed rights? Surely not.

Law then, as Bastiat breaks it down, is defined as “the common force that protects this collective right [and it] cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.” That is to say, law is the common force of a number of people and only has the authority of those individuals in defense of life, liberty, and property. 

We ask: Is it right to defend my life with force? If yes, then, I may do it collectively as well with a “common force.” Is it right to defend my liberty with force? My property? “Thou shalt not steal” is again, good law—but it is meaningless without an enforcement mechanism. Empty words without teeth. Remember, even the apostles carried swords (Luke 22:38).

If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then we might ask how was it that God Himself so provided for those things in the Old Testament? Defense of any of these is certainly not inherently wrong. The “common force” is nothing less than government. If a Christian may engage in defense of life, liberty or property as an individual, he or she may do so as part of government.

Is it possible that a “common force” (government) can be used for nefarious ends? Of course. But it is also possible for the collective force or governing authority to do right. This is the basis of Romans 13:1-7.

The New Testament

Let’s check our answer with the New Testament. The apostle Paul was arrested in Jerusalem (Acts 23). Kept in a Roman prison, he discovered that a plot had been laid for his life by the Jews. This conspiracy (23:12) was made known to Paul by his nephew while visiting the apostle. Paul instructed the young lad to take the information to the commandant. The commandant considered the news credible and prepared almost 500 armed soldiers—acting as a police force and deterrent to the murderous plot of the Jews—to transport Paul to Caesarea.

Here is a case of an apostle, utilizing the lethal force of government to protect his life and ensure a miscarriage of justice did not occur. It is certainly right to use violence for self-preservation. If it is right for Paul to use it, it is right for another Christian to participate in the governing authority that Paul used.

It seems less than satisfactory for one to respond, “Well, the Roman soldiers and governing authorities are going to hell anyway, so let them to the killing.” By that lack of rationale one would hope that conversions among the military or police or state officials would not occur so that we may protect ourselves with the devil’s population!

It seems clear that a Christian may engage in statecraft—organizing laws and regulations for a community based upon Christian standards, including enforcement mechanisms. The only issue therefore, is: What kind of governance is it by which we can best maintain the liberties granted to us by God? The perfect answer is provided succinctly by the one and only Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson

In a letter to Gideon Granger in 1800 Jefferson explained how centralization of government would lead to despotism and loss of freedom.

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens, and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder and waste. And I do verily believe, that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being force in the United States, … it would become the most corrupt government on the earth.

If you wish to maintain your liberties, keep the governing powers local. With words that are so accurate they ring prophetic, he continued,

What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government. The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.

Bill Lockwood: The American War on God & the First Amendment 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

American leaders have been hostile to God for over a century. Our cultural landscape has been re-shaped because of it. One of the most recent battles involves a High School in West Virginia.

The Rutherford Institute, led by John Whitehead, has a press release this week which once again shows the depth and nature of this war against Christianity. A high school student-led club called Youth Alive in Weston, West Virginia has practiced posting sticky notes with inspirational messages to encourage each other on a bulletin board in one of the hallways. It is student-led, featuring Young Republicans, Young Democrats, Youth Alive, and other groups–all which use the board.

The trouble apparently came when students began posting Bible verses of a self-help nature on the board. That was too much for the Lewis County High School administration, which promptly shut down the bulletin board completely. No Bible allowed. It probably would have still been in use had students posted a quote from Karl Marx such as “Workers of the World, Unite!”

The nature of the America’s struggle is here seen. It is The Bible that is under assault. With concerns over a non-constitutional measure called “Separation of church and state,” the Lewis County High School actually has capitulated to the onslaught of secular forces in America.

John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney, comments, “What a missed opportunity to support young people in their efforts to find positive, constructive methods of engaging with fellow students who might be struggling with feelings of depression, unhappiness and stress.”

Whitehead has been fighting this secular onslaught for forty years. “Not only is the removal of these inspirational notes a clear act of censorship that violates the First Amendment,” he said, “but it also sends the disheartening message to young people that school officials care more about doing what is politically correct than doing what is right.”

The Rutherford Institute is leading the legal fight for liberty in Lewis County, demanding the Youth Alive be allowed to re-post inspirational notes, including selections from Bible verses. Students need faith, encouragement and forgiveness in a world where people are broken-hearted, alone, insecure, stressed and confused. The Lewis County High School has actually violated the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act, a federal statute that guarantees religious and political clubs equal rights in public schools.

First Amendment?

Two things here. One, the First Amendment is designed to forbid government from endorsing or supporting one particular church in the Christian world—nothing to do with removing Bible, Christianity, or godly principles from the public square. The forbidding of “establishment of religion” in the First Amendment simply refers to a “National Denomination” in the sense that America was to have a State Church supported by public taxes.

As a matter of fact, Fisher Ames was the Founding Father who offered the final wording of the First Amendment. From his own writing it is clear that “religion” means “single Christian denomination.” The original version of the amendment, proposed in the Senate on Sep. 3, 1789, stated, “Congress will not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” The second version read, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination.” The third version reads similarly.

Note that the word “religion” is interchangeable with “denomination.” The founders were unanimous that the First Amendment merely forbade the establishment of a National Church. It had nothing to do with excluding God from the public square, least of all from schools. But what do secularists care about original intent?

Second, Dr. Samuel Mitcham, Jr., a military historian who has authored the recent It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War, stated in a recent interview on the American Liberty with Bill Lockwood radio show, that which we term “political correctness” is actually nothing less than Cultural Marxism. Everything has a place in the market-place of ideas—except the Bible.

Dr. Mitcham knows whereof he speaks. A college professor for over twenty years and author of more than 40 books on military history and the culture, Dr. Mitcham is right on target. Who would have guessed that none the less than Karl Marx would have been the dominant force in American political “correctness” within two hundred-fifty years of his Manifesto?

 

« Older Entries