Tag Archives: United States

Bill Lockwood: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

by Bill Lockwood

With the recent shootings in America liberal politicians have proposed curtailing the God-given unalienable right to keep and bear arms as a method to stem the violence. From presidential hopeful Joe Biden recently telling Anderson Cooper, “Bingo” when asked about the government coming for “guns” to Kamala Harris’ proposal that if she is elected president she will enact “executive orders” to confiscate “assault weapons” when Congress fails to act, the Second Amendment needs to be re-asserted.

It is a historical fact that in nations where political leaders wish to remove properties and freedoms of the citizenry, they always begin by disarming the populace. This normally begins by requiring registration of firearms and imposing penalties when they do not. This is followed in many cases by federal governments deliberately provoking rioting and violence which is then used as an excuse to confiscate firearms.

The Second Amendment—A Prohibition

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The first thing to be noted is that the 2d Amendment is a strict prohibition against the federal government. It is not a declaration of rights, period. The right to keep arms was assumed to be God-given by the founders, but they added the Amendments to ensure that the national government would not touch these freedoms.

The Bill of Rights opens with this bold statement, “Congress shall make NO LAW …” What Joe Biden and his Democrat cohorts propose is unconstitutional on its very surface. Federal government has no say so in the matter. Making “no law” is pretty clear.

Second, there is a popular view today, though erroneous, that the 2d Amendment means that the National Guard should be able to keep and bear arms, but that the guarantee does not extend to ordinary citizens. Those who advance such an argument either have not read the Founders themselves who wrote the 2d Amendment, or hope you do not—or both.

The concern has always been, from the time of the creation of America until today, that a centralized federal government would evolve into a dictatorship or totalitarian state. The framers, with one voice, stated that the only counter measure to such gravitational pull over time was the populace itself. Alexander Hamilton, for example, in The Federalist Papers, asserted that liberty would always be ensured as long as the people were allowed to be “properly armed and equipped.”

James Madison, who authored the 2d Amendment, wrote that under the Constitution “the ultimate authority …resides in the people alone [due to the] advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Joseph Story, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (8112-1845), a foremost Constitutional authority, wrote:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, noted that

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence….From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.

Sam Adams, introduced in the Massachusetts convention the call to ratify the Constitution. In it he said that the “Constitution never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own guns.”

Sir William Blackstone (1725-80), though not a founder of this nation, was one of the top four quoted authorities on Common Law. Lawyers in America until the time of Abraham Lincoln normally carried Blackstone with them. Of the right to keep and bear arms, Blackstone said,

“Of the absolute rights of individuals: the fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject … is that of having arms for their defense …”

He explained that the basis for this right is the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression” (Alan Gottlieb, The Rights of Gun Owners, 1983, p. 6). It is as if Blackstone was mirroring current day America and the push of Democratic and Socialist lawmakers to open our borders to the entire third world, turning our streets into combat zones in some cases.

State Militia

Still, some cling to the wording of the 2d Amendment which states a “well-regulated militia” is necessary for the security of a free people to insist that this right to keep and bear arms be reserved for a specialized unit which one must join. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most Americans do not realize that they themselves belong to the state militia where they reside. Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code defines the militia of each state as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 694).

The United States Congress has weighed in on this topic as well. In 1982 a Senate subcommittee on the Constitution carefully documented the 2d Amendment understanding in a public report. After lengthy pages of history, it noted that in various states after the War for Independence many proposals called it a general duty for all citizens to be armed. Richard Henry Lee, for instance, observed that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …”

George Mason of Virginia, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted to “disarm the people—that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.” Patrick Henry said that the “great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.”

St. George Tucker, one of the earliest commentators on the Constitution and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, published in 1803 his annotations. He followed Blackstone’s citations (noted above) and pointed out regarding the 2d Amendment that it is “without any qualification.” So also, William Rawle’s “View of the Constitution” published in 1825. He emphasized that,

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

The 1982 Congress summarized some of the above material. First, subsequent legislation in the Second Congress “supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States.”

They went on to add that these persons “were obligated by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.” “There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress … spoke of a ‘militia’, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard.” (Skousen, p. 699).

Second, the prohibition is strict and broad against the federal government or its officers from being able to address the issue of firearms or weaponry in the hands of its citizens. The reason is clear. As Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution put it this way: the right to keep and bear arms is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic.” This is a natural deterrent to tyranny.

So, whether it is Elizabeth Warren, who wants to have the federal government involve themselves in background checks, or Kamala Harris, who has dictatorship-style plans to move unilaterally on guns if elected president, or Joe Biden, who plans to implement bans on “assault weapons” at the federal level, or Bernie Sanders, who promises some type of executive action on firearms—all of these are theorizing in unconstitutional territory. If the federal government can step into this arena—no matter how small a role—history shows that this foot-in-the-door will expand to larger roles as Constitutionally illiterate people pouring out of the colleges demand more federal control. Voters, beware.

 

Alex Newman: Using Bribery and Threats, China Seizes Another UN Agency

by Alex Newman

Using bribery and threats, the Communist Chinese regime in Beijing just secured control over the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), a key UN agency with a massive budget. Several Western governments tried unsuccessfully to stop the takeover by Communist Chinese operative Qu Dongyu (shown). Especially alarming to observers is the fact that the regime openly boasts that its nationals at international agencies must continue obeying orders from the Communist Party of China. Indeed, the Communist Chinese then-president of Interpol was arrested during a visit to China, with officials saying he was obligated to obey party orders.

But the latest victory for the most murderous dictatorship in human history represents only the most recent international organization to fall into China’s hands. Indeed, a fast-growing number of UN organs are already under Chinese control including the agency being groomed to control the Internet, the agency overseeing air travel, and other powerful UN bureaucracies. And if Beijing and its powerful Western allies get their way, this will not be the last UN outfit to come under Beijing’s control. The implications for freedom in light of Beijing’s growing role in what globalists describe as the “New World Order” are enormous.

The UN FAO selection process was hardly legitimate, sources in Rome and Washington told The New American and other publications. Indeed, a diplomatic source quoted by the French newspaper Le Monde said that Beijing had given African candidate Médi Moungui a multi-million dollar bribe in exchange for withdrawing from the race. Multiple UN FAO ambassadors sustained “intense Chinese pressure.” Various media outlets around the world even reported that Beijing had threatened at least several national governments, including those in Brazil and Uruguay, with a ban on agricultural exports to China if they failed to support Qu. Communist regimes such as the mass-murdering dictatorship enslaving Cuba openly backed Qu.

While the election is based on a secret ballot, it is known that Qu secured 108 votes in the first round of voting. The next closest candidate was Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, a euro-socialist from France with the full backing of the European Union superstate who secured 71 votes. Coming in third place was Davit Kirvalidze from the nation of Georgia, who, despite backing by the Trump administration and some of its allies, barely got a dozen votes. The decision was made by the UN FAO’s 194 member governments and dictatorships, all of which get one vote. The agency has more than 11,000 employees and is one of the largest in the UN system.

Qu and his masters in the Communist Party of China could barely contain their glee. “I’m very grateful to my motherland,” the communist operative declared after winning the secretive selection process. “Without 40 years of successful reforms and open-door policy I would not have been where I am,” he said in his first speech, proudly sporting a lapel pin promoting the totalitarian UN Agenda 2030 that Beijing said it played a “crucial role” in developing. “Now the election is over and I will be committed to the original aspiration, mandate and mission of the organization.”

Among the various policies Qu has touted was a massive surge in what he called “Vitamin M,” or “money.” In a speech, he called for boosting the organization’s funding — already at almost $3 billion per year — by 10 percent annually for every year of his term. And in April, while campaigning for the post, Qu called for “changes” in the “production and consumption” of agricultural goods around the world under the guise of environmentalism. This comes directly out of the Agenda 2030 scheme, described by UN leaders as the “master plan for humanity” and a “global declaration of interdependence.”

Back in Beijing, Qu’s overlords were overjoyed, too. Qu’s victory was a “show of high appreciation of China’s support for multilateralism and advancing global development,” according to Communist Chinese “foreign ministry” spokesman Geng Shuang. Geng vowed that the dictatorship, which starved millions of people to death in the not-too-distant past, would “continue to work with other countries to promote the development of the global food and agriculture industries.” That should be highly troubling to advocates of freedom and private land ownership.

The new director-general, who served as “vice minister for agriculture and rural affairs,” will replace Brazilian communist Jose Graziano, whose term has been marked by seemingly never-ending scandal. Among other outrages, Graziano has worked to shut down honest reporting and criticism of his tenure. In one especially outrageous case, the Brazilian radical even sought to destroy the Italian Insider newspaper while having its editor jailed under arcane local laws. Graziano was outraged that the Rome-based publication was exposing various scandals and misdeeds among FAO leadership, and so, in totalitarian fashion, sought to crush his perceived enemies using the power of government.

Graziano is also a longtime ally of disgraced former Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva, a Marxist revolutionary sitting in jail for corruption. The outgoing FAO boss has also used corruption and nepotism to try to advance the communist takeover of Latin America while trying to protect communist criminals from prosecution by granting them diplomatic immunity. Under Graziano, FAO even awarded honors to the imploding socialist dictatorship in Venezuela for its efforts to “fight hunger” — even as much of the population literally survived by eating garbage, pets, and zoo animals. Unsurprisingly, Graziano was fully behind Qu.

As The New American has been documenting for many years, the Communist Chinese dictatorship, with the full support of subversive Western globalists, has been busy accumulating more and more influence within the emerging “global governance” system. Indeed, there are more Chinese nationals in charge of UN bureaucracies than any other nation or government. Until recently, even the self-styled global “police” agency Interpol was under Communist Chinese control.

Other UN agencies under China’s control include the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is pushing global taxes on air travel. Also run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN Industrial Development Organization, a disgraced entity helping to build up hostile Third World regimes such as the murderous dictatorships in North Korea and Cuba with Western money and technology. Another key UN entity run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is seeking global censorship and controls of the Internet. Also under Communist Chinese control is the powerful UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Beijing has agents serving as deputy leaders of multiple UN organizations as well.

Communist Chinese agents are also embedded all throughout the IMF, the World Bank, and beyond. Numerous UN agreements and conferences have featured Chinese Communists as leading players, including the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which was chaired by a Chi-Com agent. The Party-controlled autocracy even opened a “School of Global Governance” at the Beijing Foreign Studies University to train legions of Communist Chinese agents to penetrate the institutions of the so-called New World Order, as Western and Chinese globalists refer to the emerging global regime.

Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokeswoman Joanne Ou warned that Beijing was “systematically deploying its officers to occupy high-ranking management positions in many important organizations, purporting to alter their policies and operations to serve its own national interests,” local media reported. Behind the scenes and increasingly out in the open, senior officials from Western governments are starting to wake up to the increasing threat of Communist Chinese influence operations.

Qu’s widely touted role as Beijing’s “vice minister for agriculture” should itself have been a giant red flag for governments around the world. Among the atrocities being perpetrated against the Chinese people under the guise of “agricultural reform,” for instance, is the wholesale uprooting of families and communities from their land. These rural people are currently being herded — often at gunpoint — into emerging new mega-cities being constructed by Beijing in accordance with UN “sustainability” schemes such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and more.

Qu has also worked on the dictatorship’s so-called Belt and Road scheme, whereby Beijing intends to expand its totalitarian tentacles across Eurasia. Numerous UN agencies — especially those under Beijing’s control — are hard at work helping China to promote and advance the Belt and Road project. And they do not even bother to hide it anymore.

Qu will take up his post on August 1, with his first term ending in 2023. His salary alone will be more than double President Donald Trump’s pay. With the UN’s agricultural department firmly under Beijing’s grasp, the regime is now working to install Andy Tsang Wai-hung as head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. The U.S. taxpayer funds about one third of the FAO’s bloated budget. And there is already talk in the White House about defunding or withdrawing from the FAO. But that is not enough. It is time for the United States and other civilized and free nations to abandon the corrupt UN and its Communist Chinese-controlled tentacles before the threat grows even more severe.


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

 

Jesse Lee Peterson: NOBODY LOVES AMERICA LIKE WHITE PEOPLE DO

Jesse Lee Peterson applauds those who support our country

by Jesse Lee Peterson

One man, President Donald Trump, is restoring America to its original greatness. God bless America, and God bless the Great White Hope, President Trump! With this year’s Salute to America on Independence Day in the nation’s capital, it’s finally clear that America is back!

I am 70 years old. I have not seen such an inspiring patriotic celebration since I was a kid. The president’s speech, and the event that he put together for the Fourth of July, expressed his pure love for our country.

I have noticed that no other group of people in the United States truly loves America as a whole like white people do. While growing up on the plantation, and throughout my life, I’ve watched white people proudly honor the country with visible displays of affection and respect. They support freedom, independence, true justice (not fake “social justice”), and adherence to our laws and Constitution like no one else. They work hard, create businesses, jobs and inventions, and – right or wrong – share these opportunities with others, and selflessly support others’ rights. President Trump is a perfect example of this love.

I wondered why it is that white people love the country so much, while blind people of color don’t share an appreciation for their opportunities. I realized that it’s because white men founded and built America, the greatest country on earth. Everybody and their mama want to come here – we can’t even keep the illegals out! But once they’re here, whether by choice or by force, they turn on the country and the white people who allowed them to be here. Nowadays, only whites have it in them to love and preserve America.

When I worked picking cotton as a boy with my grandparents, when blacks were moral and hard-working, we loved the country too. It only makes sense to love the place where you were born – especially the United States of America. But as blacks fell for the lies of socialism and communism, they also fell away from love. Blacks abandoned morals, fathers and real belief in God. Now they cling to false victimhood, government taking care of them, and insane hatred toward white people.

You can find some people of color who like the country. A few even really love the country, those who’ve awakened out of their fallen state. Thanks to the president, his courage and realness, many people of all races are awakening and finding that love.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

I’ve been working for over 29 years, telling the truth, encouraging blacks to wake up, drop anger, and return to their fathers and to God. People of all races have tuned into my radio show, church services, and my interviews with people on “the Fallen State.” Many of them call in to talk on-air about the issues they’re going through, or get private counseling through my nonprofit, BOND. They commit to prayer, get to know themselves, forgive their parents – and their lives return to order.

Last year, I declared July to be White History Month. Doesn’t July just feel white? It’s because of white people that we have Independence Day in America. In this country, we have the ridiculous “Black History Month” for so-called “African Americans” who don’t feel like they’re part of America. Homosexuals get two separate months! One celebrates so-called “Pride” and the other “LGBT history,” as if there’s anything good about homosexuality, transgenderism or any of that crap. Why not White History Month? Decent whites are hated – for no reason – by the people of color and children of the lie.

Disgracefully, we’ve allowed communism to take hold in America – an evil, anti-American, hate-based ideology that demonizes good white men like Trump. Some filthy communist scumbags burned an American flag in front of the White House, clashing with the Proud Boys and other normal patriotic people celebrating. But one man wearing a “Make America Great Again” T-shirt grabbed the tattered flag from America’s enemies as it burned. A U.S. Marine Corps veteran, he refused to step on the flag, but put out the fire with his bare hands. It’s beautiful that a veteran would show this love.

Unfortunately, the children of the lie have propped up a mixed-race black thug to falsely demonize our country, our flag, our military and police. You’ll recall Colin Kaepernick was the former NFL football player who refused to stand for our National Anthem, turning his back on America. Knowing that most blacks support evil, the shoe company Nike sponsored him with an advertisement promoting him as a hero.

On the first of July, Nike bowed again to the thug Colin Kaepernick, canceling the release of their patriotic shoes. Retail stores reportedly already received Nike shoes emblazoned with a “Betsy Ross Flag,” styled after the American flag from the time of the American Revolution. But because Kaepernick complained that America’s founding represents white people and “slavery,” Nike cancelled the release of the shoes!

This is why I want white people to marry and make white babies. I call on all people of good will to appreciate white people. If we lose whites as a majority, we lose America.


WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/nobody-loves-america-like-white-people-do/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: Spiritual Guidance & Modern Superstition

by Bill Lockwood

In Mexico, and in Mexican communities in places such as Los Angeles, there’s a lively movement of prayer to Santa Muerte, Saint Death. You pray to her for protection from the dangers of the night, in the conviction that she can protect you from attack, accident, and violent death. She can also bring trouble to someone who has attacked you unjustly. Prayer to Santa Muerte goes back to the religious life of people in the area before the gospel came to the Americas. (1)

Our modern era is supposed to be a bold new age that has cast off its need for God and the supernatural. According to modernists who signed the Humanist Manifesto’s I & II and the Humanist Manifesto 2000 mankind has outgrown its need for “God.” In reality, however, modernists who reject God eventually opt for the false religious ideas of man—the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

By the “god of this age” the apostle Paul, who penned 2 Corinthians, referred to “all the floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations at any time current in the world.” (2) These are precisely what are lauded by today’s cultural leaders.

A recent Pew Research study found that a large and growing percentage of Americans believe in reincarnation, astrology, psychics, and the presence of spirits in nature. The shock comes, however, in that not only do 6 in 10 Americans accept these beliefs, but that the numbers are the same among those who are self-professed Christians. Even agnostics have adopted occult ideas.

According to a new research by Trinity College in Connecticut, Wicca is one of the fastest-growing religions in the country. Between 1990 and 2008, it saw a forty-fold increase in the number of adherents. One-and-a-half million Americans now identify as either Wiccan or Pagan. As The Christian Post put it, “Wicca functions as a spiritual patina on progressive politics.” The occult is becoming mainstream in America. Such is a culture that continues to reject God.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is not simply the recognition that there are various cultures in the world, or even represented in the United States. According to Charles Tesconi at the College of Education at the University of Vermont, multiculturalism specifically views “all value systems as equal.” The multicultural view treats all diverse groups and ways of life as equally “legitimate.”  “Moral diversity” is the idea. This multicultural perspective therefore de-values biblical concepts as no more valid than any pagan or heathen belief. This is what is integrated into nearly all areas of public education and entertainment. “Diversity” is the watchword.

An example is the recent Disney movie Coco, a beautifully animated film that celebrates the Mexican tradition known as Dia de Muertos (Day of the Dead). Dia de Muertos has its roots in a “pre-Hispanic commemoration of deceased loved ones that is practiced by some Latin American indigenous populations” (Smithsonian.com). The film “draws its cultural inspiration from several Mexican variations of this tradition, which also happen to be those most commonly found in the United States.”

In the story-line, Miguel, a young boy is transported to the place of the dead in order to speak with his deceased ancestors. Cynthia Vidaurri, the writer of Smithsonian’s review, then asks:

So here is the big question: Did Disney Pixar get it right? My first response is to ask another question, ‘Right by whose standard?’ Are we talking about the indigenous traditions of celebrating ancestors as they were practiced before the arrival of the Europeans? … What about the Day of the Dead that merged with Roman Catholic practices after the arrival of the Europeans in the Americans? What about the Mexican national celebration? What about the Day of the Dead tradition introduced to the U.S. by Mexican Americans during the Chicano Movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s? Or maybe the Day of the Dead Traditions that are practices by recently immigrated Indigenous Latino populations in the U.S.?

The Smithsonian plainly challenges the cultural norm that was once common-stock in America—Christianity. Right by whose standard? There is no ultimate standard to multiculturalists. This is what we are being constantly fed, from the entertainment industry to the schoolhouse where “diversity” reigns. Little wonder that various forms of superstition such as Wicca, occultism, and prayers to Santa Muerte are being practiced. Remove the One True God from the culture and everything else becomes fashionable.

Isaiah 8

Many of Isaiah’s day (8 centuries B.C. in Israel) felt the same way. Turning away from God, however, they turned to superstition. Isaiah, the inspired prophet of God, relates that they sought spiritual guidance from “familiar spirits” and “wizards.” Some of these “chirped” and “muttered” out their instructions. Others among the Israelites assumed that dead people had access to information that was normally inaccessible to the living. They therefore sought to contact “dead people” in Sheol, especially their relatives to get guidance for the future or advice about coping with the crisis at hand—the threats from foreign nations (Isaiah 8:19).

Isaiah “bursts out” against all such occult practices that seek guidance from anything but God. “To the law and to the testimony!—if they will not speak according to His Word, there is no dawn of morning for them!” (8:20). Our culture condemns itself to the night from which there is no morning—if we do not seek spiritual guidance only from God.

(1) John Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone, p. 37.

(2) Fritz Rienecker & Cleon Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 463.

Bill Lockwood: Mixing Politics and Religion

by Bill Lockwood

In a letter to his wife Abigail in May, 1780, John Adams famously wrote:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

To John Adams the most important element of life was family. His continual service to the nation included that he was a delegate to the Continental Congress, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, an official Minister to England on behalf of the United States, and the second President of the United States. But this service he considered a “necessary evil” in order that he might enjoy pleasures of family and that his own future generations might enjoy the same.

In our modern era where warnings against “mixing politics and religion” are memorized and repeated without any real deep thought as to why or even what this means, Adams teaches us a few things about it. His keen mind was able to probe the issues of life and distill the principles and realities involved.

In analyzing what Adams meant when he said “I must study politics that my sons may have liberty to study …”, note the following.

What is Politics?

First, what is Politics? Politics simply means the management or administration of society. The word “politics’ is from the Greek word ‘politika’ meaning the “affairs of a city.” It is “the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group” (Wikepedia). Frequently the word “politics” is used negatively, such as in “play politics.” The root idea of the word, however, refers to principles by which people are to be governed.

The question now becomes, by what set of principles shall we govern society? Shall we use biblical principles or humanistic ones? Shall we use God-inspired principles upon which to base human laws, or shall we simply drift off into allowing people to do “what every man thinks is right in his own eyes?” The only issue in our society therefore is whether or not we plan to manage ourselves according to Christian principles.

This applies to a wide variety of social levels: the workplace, the office, the team, the church, or cities and nations; there is even “international politics.” All policies that are adopted in these various groups are called “public policies” precisely because those policies effect others. Once again, these policies will either reflect Christianity or humanism (non-religion).

These facts being so, whence comes the idea that Christian people should remain free from “politics?” Is it somehow inconsistent with biblical values that Christians should not influence public policy?

Freedom Politics is Pro-Family

Returning to Adams’ quote above, note that he was interested in freedom for his family. He wanted to construct a society along Christian principles that by this framework of freedom his family in future generations might continue to enjoy liberty. Specifically, limited government would allow personal freedom to flourish while at the same time curtail dictatorships or top-down controls that destroy freedom.

A sidebar note: Many confuse Roman Catholicism with New Testament Christianity. Not only were the colonists almost 95% Protestant in their belief-systems, but were afraid of Catholicism. The reason for this is clear. Roman Catholicism is an unbiblical political system that was constructed through the centuries to mimic Old World kingdoms such as the Roman. It too, therefore, is dictatorial and stifles freedom. Its record as a tyrannical power is matched only by other forms of government absolutisms.

Adams was well-aware of all of this. This is why that during the tumultuous formation of the United States he felt that he needed to invest time in order to create a political landscape such that allowed freedom to ring—but this was in order that his children might be able to enjoy more pleasurable pursuits. The political machinery of a nation is a direct reflection of religious values and presuppositions that underlie the society. For future family freedom, Christian politics was necessary.

Politics was not just one “hobby” that Adams chose among others he might have chosen, even though that is the casual way people view politics today. Adams showed this by couching it in his word “must.” In other words, politics was his “duty.” It functioned as an obligation. Political freedom is foundational to other freedoms.

To illustrate, Adams used “war.” Those who enjoy freedom and liberty rely on the sacrifices of untold thousands who study war and become warriors. A warriors’ occupation is not like playing sports, or collecting old cars or antiques. Without a fight for freedom, there would be no games to play or antiques to collect. Someone must do this business of war if we are to have pleasures of life. If we were all running for our lives from enemy soldiers, who cares about playing games?

So also is managing people by politics. It is foundational to freedom at large. For this reason, Cicero, the ancient Roman statesman at the time of Julius Caesar, observed: “For there is really no occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the august function of the gods than that of founding states or preserving those already in existence.”

So exactly. Christians, being correctly informed, can change the character of the political landscape. By bringing the moral standards of Christ into the civic arena, society itself is transformed. The gospel of Christ not only changes lives and hearts of men, but the course of civil government. Why should Christians not be involved in politics?