• Featured Content
  • April15th

    By Bill Lockwood



    Several years ago F. Lagard Smith published a book with the above title. Sodom’s Second Coming sums up well the cultural struggle in which America is now locked. Indiana passes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but Governor Mike Pence hurriedly back-peddles after tremendous public backlash. He wants to “clarify” it. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson vetoed a similar bill. Both of these measures, however, simply mirrored similar bills in a number of other states.


    Following the Civil War, the 13th Amendment officially outlawed slavery in the United States. Out of that came the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which granted blacks equal treatment in public accommodations and public transportation. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that that law was unconstitutional in that the federal government has no authority by our Constitution to take action against individuals deemed in violation by over-stepping state governments. States were to be the protective barrier against an overreaching federal government. Nor was the Federal Government ever intended to be the organ by which attitudes and feelings should be changed.

    Move to 1964. The Civil Rights Act of that year was right on the heels of the New Deal Legacy of bigger, more expansive federal government. The 1964 Act is considered a “landmark legislation” because it outlawed discrimination in private business practice based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” It effectually ended segregation in schools and once again mandated there be no discrimination in “public accommodations.” This time, the federal overreach was not successfully challenged.

    Did the measure accomplish what it proposed to do? Surveying the racial scene in America no one could argue that relations have become improved since the 1960’s. In fact, I will argue that they have worsened. Multiple causes of this there may be, but one major component of deteriorating relations between races is due to the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 diminishes personal liberty and tramples the “right of contract” which is the hallmark of a free people. It intermeddles into areas of the human mind by seeking to correct ill-motives—prejudice, whether real or perceived.

    This province belongs, however, not to government, but to the human heart and should be addressed in the local pulpit, not from halls of Congress. More importantly, the Civil Rights Act of1964 has been the major cause of transferring power from the states and individuals to the federal government.


    How was the 1964 Civil Rights Act justified constitutionally? It has been chiefly defended by means of the Commerce Clause (Article 1.8). This clause was designed however, according to the founders in their authoritative statements on the topic, to create a “free trade zone” in the United States and simply to prevent inter-state trade wars.

    How can an employer hiring an employee (free contract between individuals, Article 1.10) fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government—especially if the business has nothing at all to do with interstate commerce? But that is what the Government claims.

    It is illegitimate for any governing body to “close the income gap,” to “favor one form of energy over another,” to “mandate racial quota’s in the workplace” or even to “change attitudes” among the citizens. That belongs to opinion-makers, not lawmakers.


    What has all of this to do with “homosexual rights” and the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that are being challenged in the states? Just this. The American culture has merely papered-over the entire issue of homosexuality. The American Psychiatric Association, for example, “voted” in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its illness list.

    The very fact that a vote was taken following political maneuvering by radical homosexuals who stormed into the APA meeting in San Francisco and demanded change shows that there is nothing scientific about the politically correct mantra that people are “born homosexual.” It is hard-ball politics, pure and simple.

    Homosexuality is lawless behavior, it has nothing to do with people being “born that way.” But the political fallout from the Rainbow Agenda for saying this is so great that politicians like Pence and Hutchinson are scrambling backwards. The shrill demand is that we equate homosexuality with race. Therefore, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will apply and private businesses and individuals will forcibly be required to do obeisance to the god of the Almighty State. Freedom has all but disappeared.

  • February11th


    Bill Lockwood

    The distinction that Texas is the first state in the Union to have an Islamic Tribunal is not something for which we should be proud. Actually, a Sharia Court pre-dated the current one in Richardson, but the onus is still on Texas. One of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi, says that participation is only voluntary. Nevertheless, the new Sharia Tribunal is operating in Irving, which ought to be of no little concern to all Americans because there is no school of Islamic jurisprudence among either Sunnis or Shi’ites that does not mandate stoning for adultery or the subjugation of women.

    What concerns me here is the reaction of liberalism to the court and the complete misuse of Bible passages to support it. When measures were introduced into the Texas House several years ago to forbid Sharia Courts in Texas, liberal bloggers went wild accusing conservatives of seeing ghosts that weren’t there. Now that the Sharia Court is operating, liberals chirp, ‘Well, at least they are not cutting off hands,” blah blah blah. But it is Rodger Jones of the Dallas Morning News (2-3-15) who writes in defense of the Islamic Court, “Don’t mainstream Jewish and Christian congregations offer those kinds of services? Consider, too, that the New Testament includes an injunction against taking a Christian brother to court. The church is a better place to solve disputes, according to some interpretations. From 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (pretty snappy for a Catholic guy, eh?).”

    Now the snappy guy is dragging the Bible into it. Let us see about it.

    Paul addresses the church at Corinth regarding a number of problematic areas, including sin in the church (chap. 5) which the community of faith was to judge (5:13). This judgment was to expel the wicked man—not physically, but that he was to be considered outside of the realm of the faithful.

    The entire paragraph of 6:1-11 turns to a kind of “judgment” that was to occur within the church, namely matters of everyday life where one member has a grievance against another. But instead of settling disputes within the church Christian was litigating Christian before tribunals of the unbelieving (v. 2) and soiling the church’s name. Paul is filled with indignation and alternates between statements of horror (v. 1, 6), rhetorical questions (v. 2-4, 5b) and sarcasm (v. 5). He warns that their misconduct would forfeit their inheritance of the kingdom of God (v. 9-11). What can we conclude?

    First, Paul is talking about settling disputes without ‘going to law.’ He even urges “Why not rather take wrong?” “Why not rather be defrauded?” The church’s reputation is at stake. Why will not members suffer wrongdoing to protect it? The primary point: Guard the reputation of the church! Quit airing dirty laundry before the community! What has this to do with the subject at hand? Just this. Paul nowhere advocates an official “tribunal” with an alternate system of laws that come into conflict with legal jurisprudence of the nation. He is advocating settling disputes by brotherly agreements within the church. For the “snappy Catholic guy” to use this text to somehow equate to an official Islamic legal system complete with civic and criminal courts called Sharia is not snappy at all. It is an abuse.

    Second, the only penalty enacted by the Corinthian texts, and any text in the NT, is expulsion from the community of faith. Withdrawing fellowship (2 Thess. 3) is how it is worded elsewhere, including “to have no company with” (3:14). Yet, even those “put away” from the church are to be loved and admonished as brethren (v.15). What has this to do with “legal physical punishments” enacted by Sharia Courts around the world? Even the Dallas Court already uses Islamic denigration of women, for according to El-badawi, “The husband can request a divorce directly from the tribunal” BUT the “wife must go to an Imam who will request a divorce for her.” She herself cannot even apply in the Court! What has this to do with the New Testament? Nothing at all. No resemblance whatsoever.


  • January15th

    Bill Lockwood


    People have speculated for years whether or not Barack Obama is a Muslim. While he may not be a regular at the mosque, his policies have certainly been whitewashing and defending Islam in true taqiyya fashion, which is more than amazing since America has come under Muslim jihadi attacks with increasing frequency since the horrific nine-eleven. Now, in an unprecedented and ominous move portending the ending of free speech and open dialogue in a once free society, Obama, under the guise of “protecting our men and women in uniform,” threatens to make executive moves to erase these God-given liberties.


    Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary, insisted in this week’s press briefing that in light of the recent Islamic Paris attacks against the French Charlie Hebdo publication, Obama’s concern is not that Islam itself may be a worldview that produces violence but his worry is that freely expressing oppositional views to Islam or which Muslims simply “do not appreciate” may be the culprit.


    As reported by Neil Munro of The Daily Caller, Earnest said of the 2012 Charlie Hebdo Paris attacks, “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk. That is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously.”


    Then, portending future dictator action against free speech, Earnest added this week that “the president …was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”


    Taking steps necessary? The entire discussion as to whether journalists may provoke Islamic attacks ought to awaken each American from the stupor of indifference. Especially does this apply to the establishment media whose enabling liberalism is not any longer an open question. Print and television journalists have, with practically one voice, been responsible for protecting socialist-communist Barack Obama; from his election to his current proclivities toward dictatorship. Now he plans to stifle their freedom of speech. What irony. Accomplices in their own demise.


    Neil Munro explains that in this week’s White House briefing Earnest tried to rationalize the president’s opposition to the publication of anti-jihadist materials as a moral duty. “I think there are a couple of absolutes,” Earnest told reporters. The first is “that the publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence, let alone an act of violence that we saw on the scale in Paris.”


    “The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information.” Lobby. I bet. This form of absolutism Obama arranges under the umbrella of “advocating” for “the safety of our men and women in uniform” per Earnest. Shut those presses down. Protect the military from fanatical Islamic repercussions that come by free speech.


    Obama may indeed be coming out of the Islamic closet as Earnest “strongly hints” that journalists, reporters and lovers of free speech curtail any expression that criticizes Muhammed. Like King Henry VIII (1509-1547) who took absolute control of the press in England, both as to who could print and what could be printed, Obama threatens to end America’s experiment in liberty.





  • January12th


    Bill Lockwood


    Regardless of the Quranic violent teaching of beheading and killing to force obedience to the dictates of uninspired Muhammad; regardless of historic Islamic practices of convincing and “converting” entire populations by the edge of the sword; regardless of the fact that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, smote fear into the hearts of his enemies by horrific bloodshed; regardless of the fact that modern jihadists such as those recently in France are marching in Muhammad’s own footsteps—President Obama is doing his best to protect Islam from being in any way blamed as a hateful ideology. The following announcement comes from the White House:

    “On February 18, 2015, the White House will host a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism to highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence, efforts made even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney, and Paris. This summit will build on the strategy the White House released in August of 2011, Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, the first national strategy to prevent violent extremism domestically.”


    Preventing Extremism


    Obama’s “national strategy,” more like “community organizing” at a national level (think of Al Sharpton’s influence in local communities) promises to “integrate” a wide range of “social service providers, including education administrators, mental health professionals, and religious leaders” alongside of “law enforcement agencies” to address the violent extremism.

    But one item is OFF of the table. The rules of the conference, as framed by Obama, have already eliminated consideration of ONE THING. This single factor will NOT be considered at all. Islam. Rules of the meeting have been set. No examination of Islam, period. Therefore, if you wish to “prevent extremism” you must look elsewhere than to Islam or the Quran. Open-minded liberals will be pleased to close the discussion on that point before it begins and the shallow-minded Americans will agree, by saying, “I know a particular Muslim who does not practice killing.”

    A short read through the “Empowering” document listed above reveals the following:

    One, Obama’s agenda purposefully removes our focus from Islam by insisting on a wide range of ideological possibilities for extremism. Like concave lens that disperses light into different directions, Obama distracts attention to everything but Islam. If some ideology has ever been heard of, no matter how negligible a current threat, he will keep it in the forefront. In this way Obama will either absolutely ignore the worldview of Islam as inspiring violence or distract attention away from Islam.

    One example is this from the document: “In recent history, our country has faced plots by neo-Nazis and other anti-Semitic hate groups, racial supremacists, and international and domestic terrorist groups; and since the September 11 attacks, we have faced an expanded range of plots and attacks in the United States inspired or directed by al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents as well as other violent extrem­ists. Supporters of these groups and their associated ideologies come from different socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnic and religious communities, and areas of the country, making it difficult to predict where violent extremist narratives will resonate.”

    From what ideological community might terrorists arise? Obama thinks there is a wide range of possibilities, but certainly not in mosques! No, terrorists might be under any “bush”—but in no way connected with Islam! Even al-Qa’ida is disassociated from Islam by Obama’s read.

    In not one single sentence does Obama join the words “Islam” and “terror.” What else can we expect from the man who promised: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”?

    Two, Obama’s primary goal is that Islam itself is not to be blamed. Protect Islam at all costs. No one must look into the principles of Islam, the Quran, or the inspiration for the global advance of the Caliphate now engulfing much of the Mid-East as well as northern Africa.

    Here is a sample paragraph.

    “As the President has stated repeatedly, the United States is not, and never will be, at war with Islam. Islam is part of America, a country that cherishes the active participation of all its citizens, regardless of background and belief.”

    Later, the president warns us not to “stigmatize” whole communities. “Government officials and the American public should not stigmatize or blame communities because of the actions of a handful of individuals. We must instead support communities as partners, recognizing that a particular ethnic, religious, or national background does not necessarily equate to special knowledge or expertise in addressing violent extremism.”

    While not “blaming” whole communities, is it possible to examine the philosophies of Islam as taught in the Quran and the Hadiths? Apparently not. Hear this. “While we can and must prioritize our efforts, our approach should be enduring and flexible enough to address a variety of current and possible future threats. Individuals from a broad array of communities and walks of life in the United States have been radicalized to support or commit acts of ideologically-inspired violence. Any solution that focuses on a single, current form of violent extremism, without regard to other threats, will fail to secure our country and communities.”

    With these Obama-inspired ground rules to guide the White House Summit, no clear strategy will emerge. At least, not pertaining to Islam or Islamic terror. There is perhaps one goal, however, that may be achieved. Internet control. Instead of patrolling the mosques, Obama proposes to troll through the “Internet” to spy out possible “radicalization tendencies.” “We will continue,” promises the president, “to closely monitor the important role the internet and social networking sites play in advancing violent extremist narratives.”

    This is like Mayor blah blah Blasio promising to ferret-out possible violence-brokers on the Internet while angry mobs marching behind Al Sharpton in New York carrying pre-printed placards advocating violence marched in front of his lectern. Consistency, thou art a jewel! America continues to swirl downward into a violent vortex of Islamic terror while the President sets his sights on controlling the Internet. What a mess.

  • December23rd

    Bill Lockwood


    James Smith was born in Glasgow, Scotland in August, 1782. After being educated at the University of Glasgow Smith spent some time in the Scottish militia before retiring to his abode in an old castle of Rosneath. The remainder of his life he spent yachting and became one of the earliest members of the Royal Yacht Club.

    Smith was also an ardent cultivator of geographical science. Sir Charles Lyell, who had so much influence upon Charles Darwin, was one of his acquaintances. Since Smith was a part of the geographical society as well as an avid seaman, his travels took him through the Mediterranean Sea, the scene of Paul’s journeys as recorded by Luke in the book of Acts.

    Malta is an island in the middle of the Mediterranean and Smith was enabled to winter there during 1844-1845. This was the occasion of a remarkable series of investigations by which he is best known in theological literature. His classic work is entitled, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul.

    The great apostle Paul also wintered at the island of Malta (translated “Mileta” in the KJV) in the year 59-60 A.D. (Acts 28:1). Luke’s account of Paul’s sea voyage to Rome (Acts 27); his shipwreck at Malta (27:38-43) while en route; and his final arrival off the coast of Italy (Acts 28:11-13) became Smith’s special task to investigate.

    Smith tells that he did not assume the accuracy of Luke’s account as he began. “I do not even assume the authenticity of the narrative of the voyage and shipwreck contained in the Acts of the Apostles, but scrutinize St. Luke’s account of the voyage precisely as I would … any ancient voyage of doubtful authority.”

    What was James Smith’s conclusion? After a searching study of the geography, the navigational language of Luke in Acts, and the circumstances of the localities that Luke describes in Acts 27 and 28, he wrote that it all “clears up every difficulty, and exhibits an agreement so perfect in all its parts as to admit of but one explanation, namely that it is a narrative of real events, written by one personally engaged in them…”

    Luke’s book of Acts is indeed a treasure of inspired material. When one undertakes to examine the “travel narrative” of Paul’s voyage to Rome by ship, the sole impression imprinted upon the mind is of the utmost accuracy and authenticity of Acts.

  • December22nd


    Bill Lockwood


    With the cold-blooded murder of NY police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenhian Liu, Ismaaiyl Brinsley was merely acting out the natural conclusion of President Obama’s Climate Change of Racial Hatred in America. Barack Obama demonstrates that he has never advanced one step beyond Communist Community Organizing by helping to create an atmosphere of racial hatred and suspicion that is now sweeping the entire nation.

    Emissaries from the White House, Street-Czar Al Sharpton and Race-Baiter Eric Holder, have continued to stoke the smoldering fires of unrest by openly sympathizing with the Treyvon Martin’s, Michael Brown’s and Eric Garner’s of the world while openly criticizing the forces of legitimate law enforcement even before the facts were on the table.

    Assisted by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio who blamed the Garner death on “centuries of racism,” the Democrat Obama Team is purposefully driving the wedge of racial division.


    Communist Activity


    An unbiased examination of communist activity in the past fifty years shows that exacerbating racial problems has always been the top priority. J. Edgar Hoover wrote in 1964 that: “Nowhere have the devious tactics of the Communist Party been more forcefully demonstrated than in the Party’s efforts to drive a wide breach of racial misunderstanding in this country and to capitalize upon areas of dissension and unrest.”

    That playbook is followed devotedly by the White House today and explains why Al Sharpton and Eric Holder are inserted wherever the possibility arises for more black unrest. Obama’s only challenge is to appear neutral before the public while his henchmen do the dirty work.

    For example, communist agitators as well as the New Black Panther Party, which Eric Holder’s “Justice Department” favored in election-year threats at voting booths, were both prominent in Ferguson, Missouri. Black Panther leader Malik Shabazz was recorded leading a group of protestors in a chant against Darren Wilson. “What do we want?” Shabazz yells. The crowd responds, “Darren Wilson.” “How do we want him?” Shabazz continues. Some in the crowd responds, “DEAD!”

    Other communist groups active in Ferguson included the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and the Revolution Club of Chicago. The communists call for global revolution to destroy capitalism and freedom.


    Dead Cops


    In more recent Brooklyn and New York City protests, The Revolutionary Communist Progressive Labor Party handed out “chant sheets” to help stir the mindless masses to call for murder of law enforcement. “Hey Cops, You Better Start Shaking; Cause Today’s Pigs is Tomorrow’s Bacon” reads one of the lines.

    Barely a week ago Al Sharpton’s protestors marched while chanting, “What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want them? Now!” After the murders of Ramos and Liu Former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik responded: Sharpton and de Blasio “have blood on their hands.”

    If that is true, and many Americans cannot but agree with him, then President Obama does also, for Sharpton is his ambassador to the streets.

    But the height of arrogant hypocrisy comes as governmental officials, with somber faces, warn Americans that “Online threats against police officers must be taken seriously to stop future attacks.” “We cannot take this lightly,” added de Blasio. His investigators advise us that “anyone who sees that [Facebook posts or Online threats against police officers] has an obligation to call the police and immediately report it.”

    Apparently, carrying a cardboard placard in the street that shouts “Kill the Cops!” does not count. If it is on a sign or yelled out in a protest march led by the White House spokesperson Sharpton, that is all right! You may take that “lightly.” Just don’t “post it” on social media. Then it must be taken “seriously.” This is disgraceful.

    And for Black Panther Shabazz to incite for the murder of Officer Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri and continue to have the protection of the Obama and Holder adds lawless outrage to the disgrace.

    Until America awakens from its severe concussion of self-inflicted liberalism by booting out of office the de Blasio’s and Obama’s of the world who make it their mission to exacerbate social problems for political gain there will be no improvement in America. The only actual Climate Change in America is the increase in the temperatures of racial tension. And it is man-made at the White House.



  • December15th

    Bill Lockwood


    President Obama told Black Entertainment Television (BET) that racism is “deeply rooted” in the United States. “This is something that is deeply rooted in our society, it’s deeply rooted in our history. When you’re dealing with something as deeply rooted as racism or bias … you’ve got to have vigilance but you have to recognize that it’s going to take some time …” For those Americans who voted for the first black president thinking that racial problems will subside for that support, think again. Progressivism-Socialism needs racial division. Instead of calming troubled waters, it stirs them.

    Racist Al Sharpton, an emissary for the White House, purposefully misleads his black audiences with Michael Brown scenario’s that did not occur. Why? In an alarming Time magazine article author Darlena Cunha actually promotes the rioting connected with Ferguson, Missouri and explains the reasoning behind the liberal mindset. “Peaceful protesting is a luxury only available to those safely in mainstream culture… Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society.”

    Racial animosity must be stirred. Classic Marxian strategy. Exploit natural fissures in society. Drive the wedge. Create unrest to justify government power from the top in order to control the violence or “rectify” the wrongs. Al Sharpton quoted the Marxist playbook when demanding, “The Federal Government must step in!”

    Look at racial America from the 1960’s forward.


    Affirmative Action and Racism


    President Lyndon Johnson, in June 1965, speaking to the graduating class of Howard University, justifies federal government intrusion into the marketplace. Called Affirmative Action, Johnson explained: “You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair … This is the next an more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”

    Johnson accomplished several things here. First, he encouraged blacks to maintain solidarity with their own minority from “centuries” ago. By constructing the figure of one black man about to run a race, he helped foster the illogical idea that the “scars of centuries” still exist upon blacks today and that those scars were put there by whites. We may teach young people that the mistakes of their parents may indeed influence them to poor behavior, but sooner than later they must take responsibility for their own actions. But this will not apply to blacks, per Johnson, nor to the liberal intelligentsia.

    But more importantly, lurking just beyond the horizon of Johnson’s expressed words is the clear concept that America continues to be a racist nation. As a matter of fact, our racist outlook is so dismal from the 1960’s that were it not for the federal government intrusion to protect the blacks in America they would continue to suffer discrimination at the hands of the majority. The problem is just as great as slavery. The Federal Government needed to free the slaves; so the Federal Government needs to legislate with Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is built upon this underlying assumption—that white America is and will continue to be racist.


    Continued FedGov Intrusion


    From Johnson’s liberal launch into Affirmative Action, the engine continued to roll. Executive Order 11246 of Johnson in September 1965 stated that “government contractors” needed to “take affirmative action” toward prospective minority employees in all areas of hiring.

    The Philadelphia Order of 1969 by President Nixon was described as “the most forceful plan” to day guaranteeing “fair hiring practices” in construction jobs.

    In a landmark Supreme Court case, Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), limitations were imposed on affirmative action. It was deemed that affirmative action was unfair if it led to “reverse discrimination.” Wavering on this one, the Court stated that “race was still a legitimate factor” in school admissions, but “inflexible quotas” were not.

    President Clinton (1995) delivered a speech in which he commented upon a recent Supreme Court case, Adarand v. Pena. He opined that while Adarand set “stricter standards to mandate reform of affirmative action, it actually reaffirmed the need for affirmative action and reaffirmed the continuing existence of systematic discrimination in the United States.”

    “Systematic discrimination.” Not merely racist feelings among some whites, but so imbedded that it can be described as “systematic.” From Clinton’s day the meandering trail of Supreme Court cases leads through Hopwood v. University of Texas, which was later apparently invalidated by Grutter v. Bollinger to the University of Michigan case of 2003.

    An April 2014 Supreme Court decision (Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action) upholds as Constitutional a state of Michigan amendment that bans public colleges and universities from implementing a race-sensitive admission policy. But it is Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s dissent that speaks to the point.


    Sonya Sotomayor


    Justice Sotomayor, who claims she is the “perfect affirmative action baby,” angrily wrote in the dissent that the Constitution “does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process. It does guarantee them meaningful and equal access to that process. It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently.”

    In other words, the entire “system” continues to this hour to “stack the political process”-and every other process—to disadvantage racial minorities.

    The torch is still carried. America is, and must be considered at “root level,” a racist nation whose majority citizens would, with malice for minorities, discriminate against them. The election of Barack Obama did not show liberals differently—it only allowed them positions of power that they might continue to ply the Marxian Class Warfare strategy at a national level.

    For this reason, those conservatives that offer solutions for Ferguson, Missouri, such as that the police departments ought to hire more blacks, is nothing but liberal panacea that solves nothing. Employee quotas is not the issue. As a matter of fact, for a government body to mandate more blacks on Ferguson police department exacerbates the problem by conveying the clear message that the department has been systematically prejudiced against blacks and can only be remedied by the strong arm of the law.

    What is the solution? It begins with America coming to the realization that what we think are the secret feelings of others—whether we are right or wrong about that perception—is not the Provence of government legislation.

  • December6th


    Bill Lockwood


    One of the adjunct theories of premillennialism that has gripped the Christian world regards “The Antichrist.” Passages in Daniel (ch. 11 particularly) as well as Revelation supposedly sketch events immediately prior to the return of Christ which involve an anti-religious infidel king. This blasphemous leader is thought to be referenced in various other passages scattered throughout the Bible.

    Typical of this line of thought is commentator G.H. Lang (Histories and Prophecies of Daniel, 1940). While examining a context (Dan. 11:21-35) which has been dealing with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Syrian Greek king of 175 B.C., Lang thinks the reference in verse 36ff is to the enigmatic ruler “The Antichrist.”
    Read More

  • December2nd


    Bill Lockwood


    Communism is widely misunderstood and as a current force in America it is also widely miscalculated. Long taught in our government schools as merely “an economic system,” communism is benignly presented as a “communal sharing of goods.” Through many American history textbooks runs the continual “Red Scare” motif of the early 20th century in which “intense fear of communism” and “other politically radical ideas” irrationally gripped citizens. This shallow treatment has a clear message: as an economic system, communism is neutral and has nothing with which to be concerned.
    Read More

  • November25th


    Bill Lockwood


    Francis of Argentina, he who is called “Pope” by the Roman Church, recently reiterated his call for an “equitable redistribution” of wealth among the economies of the world and defensively declared that “caring for the poor does not make you a communist.” Instead, says the Pope, he is merely “following the gospel.” Back in May he met with the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and insisted that governments should work to end the “economy of exclusion” that keeps people from moving up the economic ladder. Francis thinks that the United Nations is an
    Read More

This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro