• Featured Content
  • May21st

    by Bill Lockwood

    vaticanpopeTo those who follow the uptick in current socialist trends it comes as no surprise that the Vatican, the official seat of the Roman Catholic Church, is in stiff competition with the United Nations to push a world socialist agenda. Using the supposed environmental crisis as the excuse to impose governing policies on large portions of human populations, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church echo all the talking points of Karl Marx.
    As initially reported by Cliff Kincaid (USA Survival) the recent Catholic Caritas International Conference held in Rome on May 12 concluded that climate change, not sin, was “the defining challenge of our time.” The solution lies in the false theology after the manner of Al Gore’s Nature Religion.  Says the Conference: “Humankind is a part of nature, not separate and above” as is taught in Genesis One. A direct assault on the Word of God.

    Jeffrey D. Sachs

    One of the featured speakers was Jeffrey D. Sachs. His billing lauds him as a “leading expert” on economic development and the fight against poverty. But this “fight against poverty” is the unbiblical and unscriptural doctrine of “Sustainable Development”—the doctrine built upon the hysteria of “climate change” which demands a Socialist-style government to “redistribute” the goods and resources and wealth of the world. Sustainable means RATIONING. For his Marxist views he has been Special Advisor to the United Nations’ Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on the Millennium Development Goals. He professes “Sustainable Development” in the Marxist-oriented Columbia University.
    These developments alone illustrate the drift of the modern Catholic Church and its methodology for people control.

    Christiana Peppard

    Christiana Peppard, writing in the online version of America: The National Catholic Review, opines that Pope Francis’ anticipated environmental encyclical, soon to be forthcoming, has created a media buzz.
    She suggests that Pope Francis’ encyclical will probably build on the edifice of two recent addresses by Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Per Turkson, “the earth needs to be protected; humanity needs to be dignified.”
    What are his solutions? “The current economic-developmental model is out of balance…. We need to shift away from an unthinking infatuation with GDP and a single-minded zeal for accumulation. We need to learn to work together toward sustainable development, in a framework that links economic prosperity with both social inclusion and protection of the natural world.”
    Pope Francis appears to be a full-blown Marxist. Sustainable Development is merely the hip terminology that is currently used to preach this doctrine of anti-freedom.
    Peppard further references Benedict XVI’s encyclical letter which is filled with hand-wringing about wealth “inequity” while proposing socialist solutions. Since the “…world’s wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase” what the globe needs is “social justice.” Benedict exulted that the modern “processes of globalization” “suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale…” Wonder what “directorship” to “redistribute wealth” the Roman Catholic Church prefers? Itself or the United Nations?
    Social Justice (socialism) continues to be Benedict’s theme. An added dimension, per Benedict, is that the world needs “inter-generational justice” because “human development cannot ignore coming generations.” The perfect formula for top-down control orchestrated by the Roman Church.
    Benedicts’ work exploits environmental concerns which necessitates government control via the papacy. Tipping his tiara to the Bible, Benedict recognized that man is to “till” the soil and “keep it” (Gen. 2:15) and that nature is not “something more important than the human person.” “That having been said,” Benedict stresses, mankind is not to have “total technical dominion over nature” because it is “more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure.”
    What these collectivist comments lack is a realistic view of why income inequality exists in the first place. Globally speaking it comes about primarily because of sinful dictatorial governments which manipulate and control their populaces with an iron fist. But as all socialists do, these Roman pontiffs ignore these types of man-made causes and criticize freedom that Americans enjoy. There is just too much of that. Look for Pope Francis to continue to sow seeds of envy among the have-nots while preaching guilt to the haves.

  • May16th

    by Bill Lockwood

    fish&hook“Race-baiting” is by definition the “unfair use of actions or statements to try to influence group action”—in this case the group is the “minorities.” It is all about mobilizing to action, such as we see played out in Baltimore and Ferguson, MO. Al Sharpton publicly stated this in Baltimore: “We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights … to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases.” The message is clear. National policing because blacks are mistreated. It is all about the minority class.
    Baser Nature of Man
    Race-baiting appeals to the baser nature of man. It appears sympathetic to a group or race it is “bait.” But it is “bait” because there is a “hook” in it. In this case, big powerful government which is accountable to no one. For if local control of law enforcement gets out of hand and is difficult to change, imagine the challenge of reforming it at a national level.
    The tactic was first used by the devil himself in the Garden of Eden. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say …?” The woman answered, “We may eat of the fruit of any tree in the garden, but concerning the fruit that is in the middle of the garden God said you must not eat …” The serpent responded, the real story is that “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God.”
    For the above reason Genesis 3 begins by stating that the serpent was “more subtle” or “crafty” than any beast of the field. “Shrewd” is another term. That Al Sharpton will follow the tactic of the devil says much about his real allegiance. Just as Mother Eve was “deceived” (1 Timothy 2) so the minority communities are being “deceived” by many of the crafty leaders among the blacks.
    By this same tactic government welfare in its manifold forms is continually furthered. ‘If one opposes the unconstitutional and immoral forcible transfer of wealth from one segment of society to another that person is deemed uncompassionate.’ The hook on the inside, however, is more control gravitates toward a centralized government accountable to no one.
    Michelle Obama
    Now comes Michelle Obama in her commencement speech at Tuskegee University last week. Claiming that she was the “focus” of a different set of questions “that were rooted in fears and misperceptions of others,” the first lady directed the following remarks to her African-American audience.
    “The road ahead is not going to be easy. It never is, especially for folks like you and me.” She then cut a wide swath. “We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives. The folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety, the clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores. The people at formal events who assumed we were the help,” Obama said.
    “And those who have questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country, and I know that these little indignities are obviously nothing compared to what folks across the country are dealing with every single day. Those nagging worries about whether you’re going to get stopped or pulled over for absolutely no reason. The fear that your job application will be overlooked because of the way your name sounds.”
    It is the same cynical appeal to the baser nature of people. This is the continual drum-beat of this White House. Invite people to identify foremost with their race. This is Obama’s bait to the black community. Federal power and control is the hook.


  • May8th

    by Bill LockwoodWWJD.islam

    Bill O’Reilly opined on Thursday that he does not question the right that Pamela Geller has to free speech, but that it is wrong to insult every Muslim on the planet by organizing an event in which cartoon images of Muhammed were displayed. Jesus would not have such an event, we are told.
    I suppose Jesus’ own words do not count as to what Jesus would or would not do. “I am the door, by me if any man shall enter in, he shall go in and go out and find pasture. All that came before me [besides me] are thieves and robbers” (John 10;9,10). This includes Muhammed.

    More pointedly, He addressed the Jewish rulers with these words, “Ye are the sons of them that slew the prophets! Fill up the measure of your fathers! Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell? Therefore, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:31-36).

    To Judaism itself Jesus charged, “Your house is left unto desolate!” I suppose every Jew upon the earth is insulted by these words of our blessed Lord. But He knows that truth must not be sacrificed to please the multitudes. He was crucified in part as a result of this plain preaching.
    Apostolic preaching, inspired by the same Jesus Christ (John 16:13), received this reaction from the Jewish Sanhedrin addressing themselves to the apostles: “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name: and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon our heads!” (Acts 5:28).
    Per our cultural leaders we must examine how the apostles must have presented the message of Jesus Christ, for surely no one displaying the “love of Jesus” would evoke this type of reaction. Geraldo Rivera perhaps would angrily retort that “when he sees these apostles he ‘wants to bathe himself’”—as he did when speaking about Pamela Geller.  Look how offensive they were to the Jews!

    Two observations need be logged here:
    One, the entire focus about the Geller-Garland event has shifted as to whether or not she should have sponsored it. In so doing, we are hurrying to absolve “Islam” itself of hate as commentators are careful to label terrorists as “extremists.” We just refuse to discuss whether or not Islam itself actually instructs its followers to kill in the name of Allah.  In point of fact, there is only ONE ISLAM and it teaches emphatically its doctrine with the edge of the sword. Muhammed did this and so the world has witnessed the spread of Islam throughout history.

    Two, in reality, the Muslims of the world oppose any type of negative exposures of Muhammed, be they scholarly reviews or emphatic sermons showing what the Quran actually demands. Cartoons may not be how one thinks these things ought to be done, but Islam is just as vehement if one were to say that Muhammed is a false prophet or to apply the words of Jesus Christ to Islam.
    The entire debate, driven by the O’Reilly’s and Rivera’s, as to whether or not we should “restrain ourselves” when opposing Islam is the beginning of the softening of the minds in preparation for Sharia-type law. Our own troops have burned Bibles overseas so as “not to offend” the Muslim population. Is this in the making in our own country?

    Courtesy of
  • May6th

    by Bill Lockwood

    Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), according to many, “provoked” and “invited” the terroristic attack by “taunting” Muslims with the Muhammed Art Exhibit last week in Garland, TX. Whether one agrees or disagrees with how Geller’s event opposed Islam and celebrated free speech, the attempted shooting by Muslims allegedly connected with ISIS has immediately highlighted how deep is the wound inflicted upon America by multi-culturalism. Many Americans have become so anemic in their thinking that they are ready to relinquish First Amendment free speech to keep the jihadi’s at bay. From Bill O’Reilly to Chris Matthews to Donald Trump to the leftist-socialist Southern Poverty Law Center the focus has wrongly been on the impropriety of Geller’s event. All right, for the sake of argument, let’s agree with them. Geller was wrong to put on the event. She purposefully provoked the Muslim community and “this is what you get,” in the words of O’Reilly. Where then are we? Can one properly oppose Islam in any venue? Is it possible for one to expose the Quran as an uninspired book of man? Might one write or speak to show that Muhammed was a false prophet and imposter? Should serious students refrain from exposing Muhammed’s personal sexual escapades—which are freely reported by Muslim histories and defended in the Quran?

    Can one quote the well-informed and learned John Quincy Adams on Islam? He certainly knew more of that religion than is allowed in our pluralistic society. From the clear historical record he summarized: “In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.”

    Might one publish this today? Well, I have news for you. Every one of these expressions of sober free speech is considered just as “inflammatory” and “provocative” by Muslims. They will be no more accepting of a preacher or president exposing the slavery of Islam than they will tolerate Pamela Geller hosting a cartoon of Muhammed. Opposing Islam in any of these fashions is just as blasphemous to Muslims. The crisis here is that when our minds begin drifting down the corridors of thought that to appease Islam (for it is not only the “jihadists” who are offended by a Muhammed cartoon) the end result is that we allow jihadists to define the parameters of “free speech.” Exactly where the Bill O’Reilly’s of the world stand. ‘We have free speech, but we must be smarter’ than Pamela Geller, he opines. ‘She is asking for trouble,’ echoes the mainstream media chorus.

    The written creed of America stands upon free speech defended by the Second Amendment. But the ‘unwritten creed’ that many wish us to observe is, “Free speech, unless Muslims are offended.” I started to write, “…unless people are offended.” But it has been open season on Christianity for about 50 years in the media and the collegiate classroom and I have yet to hear the media suggest that we must be “smarter” than to allow professors to assault Christianity. Offense to Christianity is openly celebrated in Western culture—in the name of “free speech.” Christians don’t count. Have we become so weakened that we will allow Islam to re-write our First Amendment? Has our multi-cultural society that celebrates pluralism, diversity and political correctness become so blinded that the attempted murder in the name of Allah by Muslims in Garland, TX has turned into a debate on whether or not Pamela Geller should or should not say certain things and arouse the enemy? Apparently so.

  • May1st

    USDAmeat.artby Bill Lockwood

    “Sustainable” is the current buzz-word in which Socialism is packaged. As is written in one High School curriculum, “that the student understands that sustainable development is the ability to meet current needs while not depleting the resources and diminishing the quality of life for future generations.” How will we today ensure that tomorrow’s people will have water, trees, fish, energy, and more? Our current consumption levels must be curtailed. These resources cannot be “sustained” over the long haul. But how will that be accomplished? Rationing. Who will do the rationing? Big government.
    The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee just submitted its 2015 recommendations to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS).  The stated purpose of the Advisory Report is “to inform the Federal government of current scientific evidence on topics related to diet, nutrition, and health. It provides the Federal government with a foundation for developing national nutrition policy.”
    One might suppose from that statement that government is interested in my personal health. But Washington, D.C. has been captured by socialists who are more addicted to control and monopoly than personal freedom. Therefore, the “dietary guidelines” recommend something else: “A Sustainable Shopping Basket”—as they carry in Germany, or so we are told.
    The report is absolutely chocked full of socialistic “sustainability” language. Abandoning my individual health, the DGAC wants my diet to be “sustainable.”  For example, hear this definition. “Sustainable diets: Sustainable diets are a pattern of eating that promotes health and well-being and provides food security for the present population while sustaining human and natural resources for future generations.” My dietary health must now include generations afar off.
    Becoming more conscious of future generations, not my personal health “is essential to ensure a healthy food supply will be available for future generations.” My dietary thoughts must be for my children’s children. “The availability and acceptability of healthy and sustainable food choices will be necessary to attain food security for the U.S. population over time. Integral to this issue is how dietary guidance and individual food choices influence the nation’s capacity to meet the nutritional needs of the U.S. population.”
    Before filling my shopping basket, I must consider, not so much my heart and vascular system, but whether or not “natural resources such as land, water and energy are not conserved and managed optimally.” I must take into account “deforestation”, “greenhouse gas emissions”, “adequate food in the future”, “unsustainable water use”, and “climate change.”
    “Altering” my “individual” “dietary choices and patterns” will “reduce environmental impacts and conserve resources.” Before ordering at the restaurant one must “examine the effect of population-level dietary choices on sustainability.” This is why red meat is de-emphasized in the DGAC. It is simply “not sustainable.”
    Obviously, the USDA and HHS will not leave this to my free choice, for they know I like red meat. Therefore, they “recommending” that a “core set of values” “need[s] to be implemented through robust private and public sector partnerships…” [emp. added]. Americans must get used to “new well-coordinated policies that include… agriculture, economics, transportation, energy, water use, and dietary guidance …”
    “Alter” those behaviors. Watch what you put into those shopping baskets! “Behaviors of all participants in the food system are central to creating and supporting sustainable diets.” Every person must be included! The willing and the unwilling! Future generations depend upon us!
    Washington – or the United Nations—will tell us what to eat and how to eat and how much to put in our mouths. Total control.

This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro