“If Donald Trump refuses to leave office at the expiration of his constitutional term, the United States military must remove him by force …” “the one-unthinkable scenario of authoritarian rule in the United States is now a very real possibility.” The “clock will strike 12:01 PM, January 20, 2021, and Donald Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.” So write two retired Army officers, John Nagl and Paul Yingling, to General Alexander Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to a news release of defenseone.com.
“The street protests will inevitably swell outside the White House, and the ranks of Trump’s private army will grow inside its grounds. The speaker of the House will declare the Trump presidency at an end, and direct the Secret Service and Federal Marshals to remove Trump from the premises. These agents will realize that they are outmanned and outgunned by Trump’s private army, and the moment of decision will arrive.”
Nagl and Yingling suggest that “U.S. military forces escort the former president from the White House grounds” while urging the senior officer of the United States that his “duty is to give unambiguous orders directing U.S. military forces to support the Constitutional transfer of power.”
America is not only seeing the systematic demonization of law enforcement by the Democratic Party, the gutting of police forces throughout the nation, but now an organized effort is already in the works to legitimize a military coup against President Donald Trump.
Yingling & Nagl
Both Yingling and Nagl are retired Lt. Col.’s from the Army. Yingling fought in the Gulf War and has been deployed to Bosnia. He later earned a degree in international relations from the University of Chicago and taught at West Point. Nagl is a Rhodes scholar from Oxford University, a former instructor at West Point, and is currently the headmaster of The Haverford School for young men in Haveford, PA.
Their letter is addressed to General Mark A. Milley, U.S. Army general and current the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Using the Socialist/Democratic playbook of fearmongering in order to manipulate the public, the retired officers raise the specter of president Donald Trump refusing to leave the White House. “We do not live in ordinary times,” they warn. President Trump “is actively subverting our electoral system, threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution.”
This dire admonition is due to the fact that Trump has questioned the integrity of an election based upon mail-in voting, for which the Democrats are now pressing. However, it was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) who warned in 2004 that paper ballots are “extremely susceptible to fraud.” Now that Trump issues the identical warning it is taken as a secret plot to remain in the White House despite an election. The legs of the lame are not equal.
Trashing the Constitution?
The Army officers worry about Trump ignoring the Constitution. Where were Yingling and Nagl as President Obama single-handedly shredded the Constitution with scores of unconstitutional actions such as the 2011 Invasion of Libya without congressional approval; the unconstitutional full-court press for ObamaCare built upon the grand public lie that “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”; the vicious targeting of Tea Parties by the IRS; the inauguration of public policy called DACA for illegals– solely from Obama’s hand, plus the issuing of work and residence permits despite Congress’ lack of movement on the topic; or Obama’s EPA Cap and Trade orders in 2015 which set limits on carbon dioxide emissions which Congress had specifically rejected in 2009; and a host of other dictatorship actions?
The imperial presidency of Barack Obama did not bother the Army commanders as much as that Trump has expressed concerns with mail-in voting. “Mr. Trump may refuse to leave office,” they gravely warn.
Once again, gentlemen, that was President Obama, whose socialist comrades in Congress supported a repeal of the 22nd Amendment—the removal of the two-term limit set on presidents. This striking move was offered by NY Rep. Jose Serrano in order to allow the dictatorial presidency of Obama to continue.
Yingling and Nagl even wring their hands that to solidify Trump’s unconstitutional stay in the White House, the president has raised a “private army” of “little green men” that will have to step aside for a “good morning’s work for a brigade of the 82nd Airborne.” If the US military remains “inert” the “Constitution dies.”
Once more, Yingling and Nagl have been firing their weapons in the wrong direction on the range. It was former President Obama, while campaigning in July 2008, who ominously called for a national police force.
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.” That was no problem with these veterans. But the fiction of a private army of “little green men” that will have to be swept aside by military force is a real possibility.
It is difficult to imagine a greater danger to the Republic of the United States that rogue commanders such as Nagl and Yingling actually floating ideas to the Joint Chiefs of Staff against President Trump. They are evidently laying the groundwork for a military coup against him and should be disciplined in military court. Instead, they will receive backing from the Democrats.
When our Founding Fathers referred to this nation, as “Christian Nation,” as did John Jay, one of authors of Federalist Papers, they did not intend that this be understood in the sense that an official church had been established, or that a “Theocracy” was in place, but rather that the principles upon which our republic rests were Christian in origin. Benjamin Morris, a second-generation American, in surveying the mass of material on this topic, summarized:
“Christianity is the principle and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid foundation, of all our civil institutions. It is the religion of the people—the national religion; but we have neither an established church nor an established religion.”
Some of founders even referred to America as a “Christian Republic.” That generation demonstrated this by the fact that they Morris adorned public buildings with biblical symbols such as Moses crossing Red Sea; or Moses holding tablets of stone carved on the building of the Supreme Court; or the even state papers of the Continental Congress that are filled with Christianity.
One of the formative laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence, which reads more like a theological statement to the secularists of today. Our republic posited that rights come from God and that the single role of government is to protect what God gave us, inclusive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Republic itself is an outgrowth of Christian principles.
Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, one of the most influential of the founders, having signed not only the Declaration of Independence, but the Articles of Confederation as well as the
Constitution. He wrote to Samuel Baldwin in 1790 that “his faith in the new republic was largely because he felt it was founded on Christianity as he understood it.”
Joseph Story, a jurist who served on the Supreme Court during the founding era and wrote the first lengthy Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, commented as follows:
Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
The Supreme Court in numerous cases has referred to this as “A Christian Nation.” Most notable is the 1892 case entitled The Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States. Here the Court packed its decision with a litany of precedents from American history to establish “this is a religious people, … this is a Christian Nation.”
Now it is Different
When speaking of the Bible, one denominational church manual reads, “Now it is different.” Sadly, so it is in the teaching of the founding of America, the Constitution itself, and American civics in general.
Modern Americans have become so ill-educated and misinformed on the subject at hand that even universities and professorships, endowed with tax dollars, argue vehemently against America being conceived as a “Christian nation.” They trumpet loudly that this is a “secular state” and has been from the beginning.
In 2009, for example, the church of Christ where I preach hosted a “Christianity and the Constitution” public seminar, featuring various speakers, establishing that America was designed as a “Christian nation.” Objections by letters to the editor appeared in the local paper, The Times Record News of Wichita Falls. One woman wrote:
…the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution were clearly written as secular documents, with not a single mention of Jesus or the word Christian … [I]t is a fact that the major players in the production of the federal documents were steeped in the Enlightenment: deists, humanists, Masons, and skeptics … [emp. added]
She went on to say that we had “presented discredited information” and “tortured” history to establish the claim that America was a Christian nation.
In answer to that letter, I included the following:
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (cited in the US Supreme Court case [of 1892, mentioned above] said that “Christianity is and always has been a part of the common law.” … The Supreme Court of 1844 (Vidal) said, “It is unnecessary for us, … to consider the establishment of a school for college for the propagation of Judaism or Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.”
It was also noted in response that Noah Webster, who helped ratify our Constitution, wrote that the source of our republican principles “is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or Christian religion.”
Concluding, I added that regarding to “deists” by whom our nation was supposedly founded, that at the time of the Constitutional Convention deists were not even allowed to hold public office! An actual listing of the religious preferences of the delegates to the Constitutional convention of 1787 shows that 55 declared themselves Christians while only 3 called themselves deists. That is about 5%.
Nathan Jun of MSU
After the above exchange in the paper, Dr. Nathan Jun of Midwestern State University came in to help out the secular cause. He wrote:
In response to Bill Lockwood’s April 21 letter: The First Amendment of the Constitution states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’ Both conventional approaches to interpreting the ‘establishment clause’ – the first as well as the more conservative accommodationist approach—strictly preclude any implicit or explicit religious preferences on the part of the Constitution or Congress.
The United States of America is most certainly not a ‘Christian’ nation, and this is a basic and uncontroversial principle of constitutional law. Whether or not a preponderance of the founders of this country were Christians, moreover, is wholly irrelevant. The government they founded is and has been secular in principle, if not always in spirit. The antiquated, anti-Semitic Supreme Court decision that Mr. Lockwood cited (instead of, say, the Constitution) says nothing about the fundamental character of our system of government. It does, however, say an awful lot about Mr. Lockwood and, perhaps, about his particular brand of Christianity—at least to this non-Christian.
The errors in Dr. Jun’s statement are so numerous that it is only possible to note the highlights, which I did in a following letter to the editor.
Dr. Jun: sir, your philosophy is woefully misinformed. The 1st Amendment, according to James Madison, merely forbids the federal government from establishing a ‘national church.’ No one then, nor do I, wish to have an official state church. However, that is far different from speaking of our Christian nation in the sense of recognizing Christian principles being imbedded within its framework and forming the underpinning of our society. As Patrick Henry put it, this nation ‘was founded upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.’ Joseph Story, appointed by Madison to the Supreme Court, said, ‘we do not attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity … an attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation …’
I suppose that these men are too antiquated to know what they are talking about land need modernists from Universities to straighten them out. Not a Christian nation? ‘Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege … of our Christian nation to select Christians as their rulers’ (John Jay, 1st chief justice of the Supreme Court).
Next, I only mentioned that the Founders were Christians in answer to another letter which opined that this country was founded by a bunch of deists and secular humanists—not as proof of a Christian nation. You missed that point as well.
Third, to cavalierly dismiss as ‘anti-Semitic’ the 1892 Supreme Court decision which identified us as a Christian nation bespeaks of dep-seated prejudice by Dr. Jun and a fundamental lack of understanding about the roots of America. It is extremely sad that our tax dollars support this type of radical expression.
In truth, the fact that this was established as a Christian nation infuriates the secularists in our country. Perhaps they ought to be thankful that the only “accommodation” that America made was to the irreligious, allowing them to live freely in a Christian nation without forcing them to support a state-sponsored church.
I am certain that if these professors, of which Dr. Nathan Jun is only one, who personally publishes an “Abolish the Police” signature on his Facebook page, were to live in a Muslim country, they might have a different perspective.
After the above public exchange, I contacted Dr. Jun by email in an effort to engage in a public discussion on Christianity in general. But his contempt for Christianity apparently knows no bounds as he tartly replied, “do not ever contact me again.”
So much for a free society where ideas can be exchanged openly in gentlemanly fashion.
Fox & Friends reported Monday that an Ohio business owner “is receiving threats for cooperating with law enforcement officials investigating the looting of her cupcake store last month.” “Kelly Kandah, the owner of Colossal Cupcakes in Cleveland, which was destroyed by looters, said some of those threats include people telling her that when her store is rebuilt, ‘it’s going to happen again.’”
Ms. Kandah said that some of the “complaints” of rioters were due to the fact that her cooperation with the FBI is “upsetting people” because she would involve the police over something such as property.”
The family-owned business, which is Ms. Kandah’s investment of her own private capital, is afraid to re-open after repairs because her plea to law enforcement for protection is seen by the looters as “racist” for “not supporting ‘black lives.’”
Kelly Kandah’s story is only one example of literally hundreds and thousands of private business owners who have lost, and are in the process of losing their own private property to the forces of evil. Violence is sweeping the country in the aftermath of the George Floyd death leaving cities such as Minneapolis looking like the streets of Baghdad.
Socialism Cancels Property Rights
Much of the current hedonistic lawlessness, inclusive of the disrespect of private property, is due to the infusion of socialistic “values” in our people. The doctrine of socialism disdains the very concept of “private property.” Private property is itself considered to be evil, according to Spargo & Arner (Elements of Socialism).
Not only is private property considered to be evil, but is the very cause and root of all societal problems. “Dishonesty” is supposedly caused by “private property” (p. 23); property is that which “divides mankind into classes” (p. 206), and therefore, all property must be leveled.
A malicious view of these socialists is found in their comment regarding “Negroes” and private property. “The ‘thieving propensities’ of the Southern negro do not come from a criminal nature, but from the failure of a simple barbarous people fully to appreciate the conception of private property” (p. 71).
Since private property is seen as a development of evolutionary changes through centuries, and people are as well, Spargo & Arno are suggesting that blacks have not evolved to the point where they have appreciated the developments of civilization.
It is ironic that the current slew of Marxists and socialists in our universities have maligned Christianity with a backward view of blacks and private property—when in point of fact, it is SOCIALISM itself which teaches it.
Like Spargo & Arno of yesteryear, the current Mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio, himself a Marxist, has decried the very concept of private property in a 2017 interview, as reported by USA Today (9-13-17). Private property is a roadblock to economic progress, per de Blasio.
The mobs, looters, and violence mongers stalking our city streets agree with him. Private property is for destruction. A godless worldview.
The founders of America correctly recognized that all of private property is an extension of one’s life, energy, and ingenuity (see W. Cleon Skousen, The Five-Thousand Year Leap, 171). Therefore, “to destroy or confiscate such property is, in reality, an attack on the essence of life itself.”
“The person who has worked to cultivate a farm, obtained food by hunting, carved a beautiful statue, or secured a wage by his labor, has projected his very being—the very essence of his life—into that labor.”
Property rights—or more correctly, the right to property, is in reality an extension of personal liberty. Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court once stated, “… the individual—the man—has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his PROPERTY.”
He went on to note that “the three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worthy living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”
Property rights is an essential ingredient to liberty and freedom. John Adams saw it clearly. “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secure or liberty cannot exist.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.”
For the reasons cited above, “Life, liberty, and property” is the phrase enshrined two times in our Constitution.
What Occurs When Property Rights Are Not Respected?
W. Cleon Skousen, in The Five-Thousand Year Leap, observed that FOUR things will occur, and have occurred, where the right to property is not preserved.
One, the incentive of an industrious person to develop and improve property is destroyed. This is exactly, to the tee, what is occurring in America right now as Marxist lawless gangs loot and destroy. Kelly Kandah is “AFRAID” to re-open her business, just as she was afraid to DEFEND her business as thugs destroyed it while she hid in the back rooms while the ransacking occurred. “My family built it up, [I] listened to it get absolutely destroyed,” she said on June 2. “That whole time we were locked in there [back bathroom]… I just listened to everything getting shattered and crushed.”
Two, the industrious individual would also be deprived of the fruits of his (or her) labor. Witness again Kelly Kandah, as well as a host of other law-abiding citizens who have lost their life fortune’s while their businesses went up in smoke in recent George Floyd riots.
Three, marauding bands would be tempted to go about the country confiscating by force and violence the good things that others had frugally and painstakingly provided. Who has not seen the video clips of huge Black Lives Matter crowds plus Antifa and useful idiots robbing and pillaging businesses, homes, and grocery stores?
Four, mankind would be impelled to remain on a bare-subsistence level of hand-to-mouth survival because the accumulation of anything would invite attack. Kelly Kandah, who has laboriously accumulated something of value through the years in her Colossal Cupcakes, invites lawless attacks simply due to that fact alone. It matters not that she declares she is “absolutely for the cause” (Black Lives Matter). That cuts no figure to Marxists and violence-mongers. She has accumulated something of value.
Be sure of this. In the wake of destruction of private property also comes destruction of innocent lives. Indeed, some of this has already been occurring. And all of this from a “WOKE” crowd.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet blasted the Trump administration for its policies on immigration, the environment, and more. According to the far-left UN boss, a Chilean socialist with close ties to mass-murdering communist dictatorships, the U.S. government threatens everything from water and children to “human rights.” Many Third World regimes, by contrast, were praised by Bachelet for their alleged progress in complying with UN demands.
Among Bachelet’s most significant targets was the White House effort to secure the border and enforce U.S. immigration law. “Restrictive U.S. migration policies raise significant human rights concerns,” the UN “human rights” chief claimed during a recent session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. “Reducing the number of people trying to enter the country should not be done in disregard of asylum and migrant protections. The situation of children in detention is of particular concern.”
Bachelet, who once defected to the mass-murdering East German dictatorship, was referring to Trump’s attempts to somewhat slow the enormous flow of illegal migrants into the United States — the nation that accepts more immigrants than any other on the planet, by far. How accepting more migrants than any country on Earth could be viewed as “restrictive” was not explained. The claim about children in detention was also left unexplained, with the UN human rights chief not making clear whether she believed having children in tow should constitute a proverbial “get out of jail free” card for any and all criminals.
Of course, in the real world, pouring untreated pollutants into a river or stream — and especially into drinking water — is a crime in every single state. Under the U.S. Constitution, which delegates a few limited powers to the central government, federal authorities actually have no regulatory authority over rivers, streams, or other environmental issues. Instead, as the 10th Amendment makes clear, those powers are reserved to the states or to the people who own the property that is affected.
As if to prove that the UN does indeed intend to control every aspect of human life, even the current regulation of fuel standards in the United States is now a target of the UN’s human rights machine. “Weaker fuel emission standards for vehicles, and decreased regulations on the oil and gas industries, could also harm human rights,” claimed Bachelet, as if American energy independence and slightly less onerous (but still unconstitutional) federal regulations on the energy sector were some sort of human rights crisis requiring UN intervention.
Meanwhile, Bachelet had nothing but praises for more than a few brutal regimes that literally remain in power through terror and mass murder. Not a word of condemnation, for instance, was handed out to the mass-murdering Communist Chinese regime, which has millions of dissidents in re-education camps and continues to perpetrate forced abortions, among other horrific violations of actual human rights. Bachelet said only that she welcomes the invitation to visit to “analyze in depth the human rights situation in China,” and that other governments should “do their utmost to combat discrimination” against Chinese people in light of the coronavirus. Seriously.
Regarding her native Chile, which has been under intense attack by communist forces led in part by Venezuelan and Cuban intelligence operatives, Bachelet demanded that authorities there “address the protests’ root causes: inequalities.” In other words, to placate the violent rioters and looters seeking the overthrow of individual liberty and economic freedom with Marxism, Chile must accept more Marxism. Seriously. Her office has apparently “provided recommendations” to Chilean authorities “for a sustainable roadmap guided by human rights norms.”
Of course, this is not the first time Bachelet has attacked the Trump administration and its policies. In fact, last summer, she lashed out against the U.S. government, claiming to be “appalled” and “deeply shocked” by the enforcement of federal immigration law. Taking the globalist extremism to new heights, she even claimed the U.S. government’s practice of detaining illegal immigrant self-proclaimed “families” for prosecution may be “prohibited by international law” for being “cruel” or “degrading.”
“In most of these cases, the migrants and refugees have embarked on perilous journeys with their children in search of protection and dignity and away from violence and hunger,” Bachelet said, displaying either ignorance or dishonesty regarding the true situation at the U.S. border. “When they finally believe they have arrived in safety, they may find themselves separated from their loved ones and locked in undignified conditions. This should never happen anywhere.”
In reality, as the U.S. government has thoroughly documented, human-smuggling rings are using children — some of whom are being trafficked for sex slavery — as a pretext to avoid detention after crossing the border illegally. “They are pairing children with unrelated adults, knowing adults who enter the United States with children won’t be detained,” explained U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, citing a recent Department of Homeland Security Human Smuggling Cell report. Some of those children are kidnapped for the purpose, he continued, noting that once in the United States, they are often sold into sex or labor slavery. Many of the smugglers use fake documents to make it seem like the children are part of their “family.”
Before Bachelet’s comments, Deputy Human Rights High Commissioner Kate Gilmore lambasted the state of Alabama for trying to protect the lives of innocent children, calling the alleged attack on “women’s rights” a “crisis.” Another “human rights” spokesman for the UN also chimed in on the issue, saying the global body was “very concerned” about American states passing laws that “define all unborn children as persons.” In the UN’s view, murdering pre-born babies is a “human right,” while protecting the God-given right to life of those same children is a violation of human rights.
Of course, the UN has a very different view of “human rights” than Americans’ traditional understanding. America’s Founding Fathers declared that rights were endowed upon each individual by God, and that governments are created to protect those pre-existing, unalienable rights. The UN, by contrast, makes clear that governments and international instruments are the source of “rights” (really privileges) and that those pseudo-rights can be revoked or limited by government at will. In Article 29, the UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” states that those supposed “rights” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
Nothing more clearly illustrates that the ideology of Socialism is in reality a religious doctrine dressed in political clothes than the amount of vigor socialists exert to criticize the Bible. Our entire culture war is a religious one. From Barack Obama to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, socialists have felt the need to attack God’s Word. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, once again this week unleashed on biblical values. Why? Because the Bible demonstrates that totalitarian systems are wicked.
This is all very peculiar to many mistaken Christians who naively suppose that Christians have no business logging in on “political issues.” Their idea seems to be; allow atheistic socialism and communism and fascism to trample God’s Word with hobnail boots—just keep your mouth shut. Give no answer.This evidently comes about because they cannot see divine principles behind the political machinery in America. For example,
Life, Liberty and Property
Life, liberty and property are not important values to us because they are Constitutional concepts. Instead, they are constitutional concepts because they are biblical values. This is why the Founders built our system of government upon these theological pillars.
Take the issue of life. God’s Word teaches (Psalm 139:13-16) that God gives life to an infant within the mother’s womb. But the protection of that life, the very purpose of law, Ocasio-Cortez likened to “controlling women’s sexuality.” When the state of Alabama outlawed nearly all abortion in the state in 2017, she could hardly contain herself and charged that the “religious right” only invoked religion to “punish women.”
This is the classic dodge by a hedonistic society that has thrown out God’s Word and is therefore left with a big empty hole of nothingness by which to determine what is and what is NOT life. Godless women may be sexually active—but there are consequences to that behavior, including the formulation of life. For a society to allow the murder of that unborn life so that women and men may feel no repercussions for their immorality is itself a gross violation of natural law, to say nothing of biblical values.
Consider the issue of homosexuality. Last week during a House Oversight Committee hearing on “LGBTQ Rights” Ocasio-Cortez compared religious people on the right with “white supremacists” and opined on the “long history” of people “using scripture and weaponizing and abusing scripture to justify bigotry.” “White supremacists have done it, those who justified slavery have done it, those who fought against integration have done it, and we’re seeing it today.”
What Shall We Say To These Things?
First, for one to claim biblical backing for a concept of “rights” does not mean that this is an accurate portrayal of the Bible. Some in history may have tried to “justify” racial superiority with scripture, but God’s Word cannot be blamed for every misuse which the invention of man may come up with. Ocasio-Cortez should understand this. The Bible declares that life is sacred because it is created by God (Gen. 1:27), even in the mother’s womb (Psalm 139). Yet, that does not stop liberals from demanding the murder of the unborn as a “right.”
Second, the legal standards historically established by our society have been biblically-based, including the outlawing of homosexuality. The New Testament is emphatically clear that homosexuality is a behavior-driven malpractice that results from a free choice that people make. Romans chapter one even points out that this grievous sin occurs in society only after that society has repudiated God.
If the absolute standard of God’s Word be no longer valid, then what would be wrong with being a “white supremacist” or a “black supremacist?” Can Ocasio-Cortez tell us? What standard condemns these ideologies? Regarding slavery, what would be wrong with slavery to begin with, if there is not an absolute standard by which to measure? Why would “bigotry” be an ugly thing, Ocasio-Cortez? What criminality or injustice would there be in being prejudiced and intolerant of others?
The natural parameters of Republican principles of government come from the Bible—including public morality. All the residents of a community are subject to these standards approved of by the majority. If not, government itself would be impossible. Ocasio-Cortez may rail against the “theology” of what she calls “religious fundamentalists,” but the only thing she has to offer in its place is a “theology” of atheistic hedonism which turns society into cesspool of wickedness and violence in which “every man does that which is right in his own eyes.”
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.
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?
FR Pres. Richard Haas: “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.” – AND, Trump Hasn’t a Clue!
Quietly, without debate, one of the most dangerous attacks on American freedom and sovereignty is moving through Congress and headed to President Trump’s desk for signing,. The USMCA agreement will create a North American Union worse than the European Union. Yet there is no voice of opposition being heard. My friend Rich Loudenback has written a urgent, detailed report on this looming disaster. He shows clearly that this is not an improvement over NAFTA as claimed. In fact it contains most of the provisions of NAFTA, plus a lot more. It will be a disaster to American industry, especially for agriculture. Efforts to change some of the worst provisions have been ignored. Why do you think Nancy Pelosi has allowed it to pass the House? Please read and share with as many people as possible. This must be stopped now! Tom DeWeese
President Trump is being lied to by his trusted advisors and he is clueless about their deceit. Why is he clueless? Because he can’t possibly be supporting something that is so comprehensively bad for America and even antithetical to his wall. Perhaps he so strongly wants to believe in the USMCA, that he’s been easier to be ‘covertly convinced’ about ‘the deal.’
Lest one good American with his ear can open his eyes before this arrives on his desk, it’s a real ‘done deal.’ It appears he is ready to sign it immediately, leaving with these advisors, his trust. He will be screwed! And America will be ‘transformed’ into a different world.
Believe it or not, I have actually had a couple people tell me they think it’s possible that Trump does know the truth about the USMCA, which would make him also part of the problem. Like most devout Trumpers, I choose to believe that that’s not possible. I am all in for him, but this USMCA just doesn’t comport with his many, many incredible accomplishments and persona projecting American greatness.
Trump’s signing the USMCA will, in fact, be the biggest mistake of his presidency to date and unfortunately will probably become his enduring legacy. He will be ‘The US President That Signed Off America’ to be run by the UN/globalist community steered most largely in America by the clandesant deep state managers at the Council on Foreign Relations in lockstep with their UN/globalist comrades.
Once he signs this monstrosity of deception with all its controlling tentacles that will render our government and our Constitution feckless, President Trump doesn’t get a do-over. He was able to cancel TTP and TTIP because they were still looming bills in congress.
When he signs this as law, that’s it! It has a six year review written into it and an 18 year renewal statement. Trying to get out of it will be like England’s’ BREXIT but tougher, because a lot more money will be easily spent to hold us down since we are the globalists’ biggest threat.
One of many negative issues for the United States is cited by Christian Gomez in his article‘What’s Really in the USMCA’stating, “In the name of protecting fishes and other marine life, the United States would have to surrender its sovereignty over all of its waterways and miles of coastal oceans (including everything under, on, in, and above them) over to the jurisdiction of UN international law.”
What is particularly sickening about this horrendous climax about to befall America is that literally all the supporting conservative talking heads on TV & radio have bought into this because they believe in our great President and don’t fathom that his enthusiasm for it is the product of ingenious ‘stealth programming’ of him by others. Virtually no one has done any vetting. Worst of all, our apathetic citizenry is not present on most issues anymore and totally oblivious on this one since there has been no causations to notice for concern.
How many patriotic Americans are going to tolerate President Trump’s much vaunted USMCA once it begins being implemented by the powers of the UN globalist, once our patriots see what the USMCA really does. It will:
Since this is truly so hard to believe, then do something none of the media talking heads nor, unfortunately, none of the 348 House Democrats and Republicans who just voted ‘YEA’ for the USMCA obviously did not do: Read the damn document!
We should be livid, because they generally like to say they voted for the ‘bait’ woven into the document for them to justify their votes, like they are pearl-like gifts for dairy farmers or other special interests.
This is a national crisis and quite literally nobody is aware of it. We will morph into what will more than likely become the North American Union which will in turn become a segment of the UN run global government, ‘think New World Order.’ Again, should you have doubt, just read the document.
However, it runs for 1,809 pages — 1,572 pages for the treaty chapters, 214 pages for additional annexes, and 23 pages of side letters. Obviously, the mammoth size of the agreement should set off alarm bells that much more is involved than “free trade,” which should mean the absence of government intervention.
A much easier approach to learning all that’s in this scheme to ‘transform’ (sound familiar) America into a member state of a regional UN run government via this fine- tuned instrument of deception and guile, is to look at Christian Gomez’s spectacular expose’ of it in his article What’s Really in the USMCA? – A MUST READ!
Gomez’s genius approach to revealing the USMCA is to expose the UN’s controlling tentacles within the Trojan Horse agreement in his article and then allow you to go to his in-depth ‘USMCA Issues Index’ at the bottom of the article that features links to any of your concerns that take you directly to them in the actual agreement. You will save a lot of time and be convinced quite quickly why this is all a ruse to take utter control of our freedoms and our government rendering The United States of America null & void.
“The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward,” says Gomez.
TREACHEROUS BETRAYAL BY ‘TRUSTED’ ADVISORS:
“A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change.” – Quote from Christian Gomez in his New American Magazine special report ‘USMCA – A TPP Redux?’
Guess who was the chief negotiator in both NAFTA and TPP?
Larry Kudlow, President Trump’s Chief Economic Advisor assures Trump that Lighthizer is the best negotiator we have and the USMCA is just what we need.
Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas said “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP. I suggest the US-Pacific Trade Agreement (USPTA),” Haass said on Twitter, adding, “What matters is that the US joins it; doing so would bolster our strategic position visa-vis China and our economy.” The next day, Haass again took to Twitter, where he reiterated his renewed hope of the United States rejoining TPP. Haass tweeted: “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.”
The USMCA — the NAFTA replacement — represents the next globalist step toward the economic integration of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into an EU-style North American Union.
Oh, and they said NAFTA would boost our trade in large numbers and add at least 177,000 new jobs. Yet, after having had a trade surplus for years, we immediately went to a $15.8 billion deficit the first year and it has increased every year since and we LOST at least 700,000 jobs stated Robert E. Lighthizer in his remarks on a NAFTA renegotiation, Aug. 16, 2018
Now VP Mike Pence’s office states, “The U.S. International Trade Commission says that within five years, the USMCA could add up to $235 billion in new economic growth and 589,000 jobs to the U.S. economy.
Yet, The United States International Trade Commission website usitc.gov, their article ‘USITC Releases Report Concerning the Likely Impact of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)’ those claims differ markedly: “The Commission’s model estimates that USMCA would raise U.S. real GDP by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent). The model estimates that USMCA would likely have a positive impact on U.S. trade, both with USMCA partners and with the rest of the world. U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (5.9 percent) and $14.2 billion (6.7 percent), respectively. U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (4.8 percent) and $12.4 billion (3.8 percent), respectively.“ ??? Right.
The late, Professor Robert A Pastor, one of the leading architects of the European Union wrote in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations:“NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”
OUT OF NOWHERE, THE USMCA PUSH HAS STRANGE BEDFELLOW: NANCY PELOSI
Making the strongest of statements on how bad this monstrosity must be, the person that would do about anything to hurt Trump, Nancy Pelosi, all of a sudden is pushing for its passage, in fact, its reported that after having a lot of new Progressive stuff inserted into it at the last minute, she is even now trying to take credit for the bill and its passage. That is all most true Constitutional conservatives should need to hear to ‘catch on.’
If this passes by the Senate and Trump eagerly signing it, there is NO second chance! Trump was able to cancel the TPP/TTIP on the 3rd day of his Presidency because it was still just a bill in progress. Once he signs this giant win for the globalists it would take Congress and Trump to repeal it. Good luck with betting on Congress. This could be tougher to accomplish than BREXIT in England, given the kind of money that would be available for our sorry LOBBYI$T loving legislators and see how frustratingly BREXIT has been going, going and going. It’s possible that spirited American patriots may be more inclined toward civil war than putting up with absolute control by unelected, unaccountable, global elitists who know what’s best about everything for everybody in a Socialist world.
We have almost no time left to wake up Senators and especially President Trump.
I really want to believe in President Trump enough to think he would nuke this masterpiece of sovereignty destroying, evil deception as soon as he recognizes the truths about it.
If we could only find one person who has his ear to open his eyes. In the meantime all we can do is all we can do. Please spread the word and make phone calls ASAP.
Mitch McConnell has said that he won’t bring this up till after impeachment trials in January. But then, he could bring it up tomorrow. I do not trust Mitch McConnell!
Call and log your opposition to this American sovereignty killing bill, the USMCA:
President Trump at 202 456-1111 or 456-1414
Your Senators at 202 224-3121
Your Representatives at 202 225-3121- Ask how your representative voted!
Rich Loundeback: An Idaho native, Rich spent 40+ years in sales, management, and publishing. He worked at factory and distributor levels in the high-end appliance industry, published a trade newspaper and worked for a management consulting company covering 9 states and 4 provinces of Canada. After living in 6 mostly southeastern states and working in all but Maine and Hawaii, he retired in 2009 in Hayden, Idaho and began writing again and now serves as the North Idaho editor for Gem State Patriot News.
Not presuming to speak for all Christians, I do, however, wish to offer a few observations regarding the general support of Donald J. Trump by Christians and Constitutionalists. This is timely seeing that so many on the socialistic/Democratic side of the political spectrum love to harangue Trump-supporting Christians about the past personal behavior of Trump. They seem to delight in pointing out his multiple marriages, his infidelities, his foul language, or other personal indiscretions, always with a view to shaming Christians for their support.
What Shall We Say to These Things?
First, no Christian of which I am aware excuses Trump’s personal sins. But this is a far cry from an elected official such as Bill Clinton using his powerful position as the chief executive to assault women in the oval office. On a broader scale, if an angry press would devote itself to scouring all public officials with the scrutiny they have applied to Donald Trump, I doubt there would be many officials to escape unscathed. So, what does this mean? Stop participating in the election process because those whom we elect have soiled lives? I suspect that is what the left really desires.
Second, I readily confess that the ideal is as stated by John Adams. “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries the most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”
Thomas Jefferson agreed. “For promoting the public happiness, those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue … should be able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens …” But where are we as a society?
It is needless to point out here that our entire culture for the past 75 years has been more reflective of Sodom and Gomorrah than the “shining city on a hill” that John Winthrop paraphrased from the words of our Savior. There is without question a deep-dyed wickedness in the populace that is corroding the nation’s soul. Finding a virtuous and godly person that will fill the position of a “natural aristocracy,” as Jefferson worded it, and willing to put themselves into the grinding mill of the political arena, is nearly an impossible task.
Third, with the above in mind, many Christians primarily have relied upon the simple principle of how best to secure our God-given liberties? Since the entire history of civilization is nothing but the story of suffering peoples at the hands of their own governments, which candidate will support the kinds of Constitutional principles that more positively reflect that? Or, more pointedly, do Donald Trump’s policies lessen the vice-grip of government, or do the Democratic policies? To ask the question is to answer it.
One must recognize that political power always, without fail, gravitates toward centralization and that this movement always erodes and destroys the liberty of people by removing the decision-making processes and transferring them to that central government. Christians therefore, have wisely resisted the growth of government. And it is only Donald J. Trump, even with his brass-knuckle less-than-genteel approach, who can drain the swamp that threatens to drown us all.
The Jews in the time of Christ did not enjoy even a modicum of the liberty that we now have as Christians in America. As a matter of fact, Israel’s sovereignty had been removed from the period of the Assyrian Empire in the Old Testament (8th century B.C.) and was never regained. The mighty Roman empire controlled Palestine during the birth of our Lord, and the Jewish people suffered beneath the local rule of one wicked Procurator after another.
So, when a Quirinius, the Legate of Syria (Luke 2:1-3), would order a census in Palestine with a view to taxation, the Jews submitted even though despising it. So also other governors of Syria such as Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, and Valerius Gratus, who followed Quirinius. Other various fiscal oppressions of a grievous sort were practiced by Romans against the Jewish people. All of these the Jews loathed, but tolerated.
This was because these governors generally respected the religious feelings of the Jews and gave wide latitude to Jewish practices and scruples. We know, for example, that they removed the image of the Emperor from the standards of Roman soldiers before marching them into Jerusalem, so as to avoid the appearance of a cultus of the Caesars (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. I, p. 242).
But all of that was far different from a Pontius Pilate who forced the hated emblem on the Jews and defied all of their most sacred feelings.
This is not unlike the political scene today. A secular society continues to dominate our culture, which Christians decry. Christians tolerate, probably too much, the unconstitutional and ungodly measures in our country. But this is completely different from a Democratic leader such as Barack Obama who publicly mocks the Bible, engineers the redefinition of marriage, rubs Christian noses in the murder of the unborn, and parades to the world that we are not a Christian nation.
Added to that is the fact that in the end, not only has President Trump boldly stood for a more biblical stance in public policy, but has sought to massively de-regulate the unconstitutional super-state in which we live. A report by the Council of Economic Advisors in June, 2019 estimates that after 5-10 years of the new de-regulatory approach of the Federal Government household incomes will have been raised by $3,100 per household per year.
Casey Mulligan, the chief economist for the CEA, explained that “The deregulatory efforts of the Trump Administration have … removed mandates from employers, especially smaller businesses, and have removed burdens that would have eliminated many small bank lenders from the marketplace. These deregulatory actions are raising real incomes by increasing competition, productivity, and wages.”
In the end, however, it is not merely economic prosperity that many Christians desire. It is to secure our God-given liberties by rolling back the unconstitutional government in which we live. Donald J. Trump seems to be the only person with enough back-bone to attempt this daunting task. I suspect that the radical left realizes this fact which explains their mindless hatred and opposition.
An interview with Bill Lockwood – a Denver Alternative Center teacher, blogger, radio host, pastor, and debater
Denver Alternative Center teacher Bill Lockwood is an unashamed patriot – and he makes his voice heard throughout the community and around the state through a weekly radio show, a blog, and 35 years in the pulpit.
So what’s he telling students these days? Communication Specialist Ann Work Goodrich talked to him to find out.
Bill, you are very well-read and outspoken about the state of our country with your blog and radio show. What issues do you press with the students?
I emphasize with the class that when our Founders wrote these documents, it was the first time in the history of the world that men sat down and actually deliberated on the kind of government under which they wanted to live. And this privilege is still ours in the sense that we can vote and participate and make a difference.
My mother had me study the Constitution when I was in high school, and I have continued to pursue that. I am able to share that with students, some of it, because, sadly, they are pretty far behind the curve. I tell them that when they get to college, they are going to hear all kinds of other stuff, and they better be ready. I don’t know if it sinks in or not.
When are you able to talk about current events with students?
In the last hour of the day during Personal Management time here at Denver, I try to get some Constitutional stuff in them. I make the point that either you manage yourself with principles of right and wrong, such as those we find in The Declaration of Independence, or someone else will manage your life for you.
Sometimes I ask, “Do you think our Constitution is made only for a moral people or for everyone?” Invariably, the answer comes back, “For everyone.” Then I introduce this quote: “Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” They may say, “Who said that?” The answer is John Adams, the second president of the United States. My point is that perhaps these Founders had insight into the nature of man and governments of the world that we have neglected.
I warn them about communism on occasion. Look at its death toll! I point out that the primary principle of communism is actually atheism. I had a great professor at Harding College named JD Bales. He traveled the world speaking about the dangers of communism and socialism. He became friends with Chiang Kai-shek, the former president of the Republic of China. Mr. Bales tutored me in my early preaching years as I debated atheists, and he gave me a lot of material upon his death. He had written even for J. Edgar Hoover during the 1960s.
Through these kinds of studies, I have been able to be in touch with great thinkers who teach me so much all the time.
I am on Jesse Lee Peterson’s radio show on the last Tuesday of each month. His show is out of Los Angeles, Calif. He is always stirring it up. Jesse writes for me as well.
Matt O’Brien from Washington, D.C., has come on the radio show to talk about immigration. He represents Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform and is a brilliant lawyer. Their website is FAIRus.org.
You are a debater, too.
I have spent 35-plus years in the pulpits of the Churches of Christ and, yes, I have had the opportunity to publicly debate atheists and Muslims. I participated in a five-night public oral debate in Marshall, Texas. It is on YouTube. My opponent was a Muslim named Hamza Abdul Malik, and it’s posted as the Malik-Lockwood debate. I took a solid year to prepare for it. Those kinds of studies put me in touch with a lot of good authors – writers upon whom I still rely to help me along the way. I interview some of them, such as author Robert Spencer or American activist Pamela Geller, on my radio show.
What do you make of all the talk about socialism now?
Socialism itself has taken over much of the thinking of the nation. Interestingly, the Founders were well acquainted with this system of government, which they called “levelling.” They did their best to keep this from occurring and purposefully constructed the Constitution to provide maximum freedom by limiting the federal government’s role in private lives. We have turned this on its head in the past 100 years. And most students indeed appreciate the allowance of freedom which, as I point out, diminishes as government grows.
The WFISD Community Insider is a publication of the WFISD Community Relations department. The newsletter is sent out every other month and includes all the latest news about the district. Stay up to date with what is happening across our district!