• Featured Content
  • July21st


    by Bill Lockwood

    Associate Justice Joseph Story of Massachusetts, appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison, has been called the “Father of American Jurisprudence” since his contributions to the Court’s decisions were so influential and voluminous. In his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), he wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable a people to resist and triumph over them.”

    A “palladium” is a safeguard or a principle upon which the safety of a people is dependent. One of my favorite Constitutional authorities is St. George Tucker, who studied law at the College of William and Mary under George Wythe, one of Thomas Jefferson’s tutors. He authored the first extended, systematic commentary on the Constitution of the United States. Wrote Tucker: “This [gun rights] may be considered as the true palladium of liberty … the right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

    Obama’s Study

    There is absolutely no question that Obama, growing more emboldened daily because of a compliant Republican majority in Congress and a disengaged populace at home, is all about being a “ruler”—not a servant of the people—whose constant “study” is to destroy the freedom of Americans. This is the mantle he inherited from communist Saul Alinsky. His success in these efforts thus far shows that, as Tucker put it, America is on the “brink of destruction.”

    First, the “Small Arms Treaty.” Set to begin on August 24th the UN will host closed-door meetings in Mexico City to remove firearms from American citizens via the “Small Arms Treaty.” The National Association for Gun Rights has called this Treaty the “Gun-Grabbers’ Crown Jewel.” Registration and confiscation on a world-wide-scale.  This is why less than 24 hours after tyrant Obama was re-elected he proclaimed his desire to pursue the U.N.’s gun ban. Over 125 nations, including the United States, have already signed on to the Treaty and 67 nations have ratified it requiring legal compliance with the U.N.’s demands.  “But by far the worst of its provisions [Small Arms Treaty] encourage nations that accept the terms of the U.N. ‘Small Arms Treaty’ and provide the details of ‘end users’ of firearms. This is nothing more than gun registration—ensuring INTERNATIONAL bureaucrats have all the information they need to create a global database of gun owners at their fingertips.”

    Second, Obama’s Proposed Gun Ban on Social Security Recipients. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Obama Administration is seeking tighter controls over firearms purchases and is pushing “to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.”

    Government cares for you? Government defines your rights for you. As one writer put it, this amounts to the rule that “anyone who can’t balance a checkbook could have their rights rescinded.” As conservatives have ALWAYS warned, this is the trouble that comes with unconstitutional government socialistic programs. People quickly forget that their natural right to self-preservation, including use of firearm force, does not “come from government” but from God. Nor do any other natural rights such as freedom of association or property ownership. Therefore, government has no lawful ability to “rescind” this right. It amounts to another Obama-planned “usurpation and arbitrary grasp of power.” “Tyranny” is how the founders labeled it.  Are we on the brink of destruction?

    Outlook.comYahoo MailShare
  • July11th


    by Bill Lockwood

    HUD.IllusA wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government …” (Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801).
    From the days of the Progressives in the late 19th century until today, the march of failed ungodly socialism as a government concept continues unopposed in any meaningful manner. The History of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is a perfect example. Beginning in 1892 when Congress appropriated $20,000 for the Secretary of Labor to “study slums” in American cities through the Public Works Administration of Franklin Roosevelt which Hamilton Fish (R-NY) rightly called “a concrete example of the socialistic tendencies of the New Deal,” the American experiment in freedom is foundering because of government interference programs such as HUD.
    But no matter. Utopian meddlers such as President Obama continue pushing headlong toward a totalitarian cliff of destruction.  Adding more regulations supposedly designed to help “diversify” America’s wealthier neighborhoods, he recently announced a new HUD program aimed at ending deep-rooted racial and financial segregation in America. As every other unconstitutional federal agency and program, HUD’s mission has now mutated its purpose. Under Obama’s leftward lead HUD moves from “assisting” the impoverished to restructuring neighborhoods along racial lines. A good reason why government should not be in the redistribution business to begin with.
    The result of Obama’s proposal is not hard to see. First, the continuing erosion of freedom. As Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) observed in response, “American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government.” Gosar is courageously leading an effort in the House to block the massive Obama regulations.
    Second, the continuing erosion of Americans’ property values. Much of what drives real estate value and cost is the “quality of the surrounding property.” As one blogger wrote, “Wedging lower cost housing into expensive neighborhoods will not result in more minorities living in expensive neighborhoods – it will instead result in there being no such thing as an expensive neighborhood anymore.”
    But more than that. Obama’s new HUD scheme will literally disintegrate home equity. Many families have tied their life-savings into home equity and property value as an investment for future retirement or to pass it along to their heirs. But, just as the printing of paper currency by the FED unfairly erodes the value of my dollar in a savings account, so forcibly restructuring neighborhoods violates the very purpose of good government—the protection of my labor.
    Third, the continuing theft of the American worker. According to the Cato Institute the public housing subsidies, rental assistance, and housing finance activities have proven to be costly and damaging to the economy. The department’s poor management and misguided policies have led to fraud, corruption, and waste. The department will spend $42 billion in 2015, or about $341 for every U.S. household. It employs 8,600 workers and operates 116 subsidy programs.”
    Each and every dollar HUD spends is unconstitutionally confiscated from the American taxpayer but its burgeoning budget reflects the nature of socialism.
    What Does Freedom Look Like? The Cato Institute website summarizes well. “The Department of Housing and Urban Development intervenes in housing and community activities that should be the responsibility of local governments and the private sector.”
    To see what freedom looks like– for regrettably, Americans need to be reminded at this point– glance at the churches. What population mixes are there? A typical residential southern community will have a large proportion of minorities and western neighborhoods are heavily influenced by the Hispanic population.  Government may mix them all together in housing, but left to their own free choice, as in the places they choose to worship, the picture looks very different.
    It is possible in one community to worship with a mixed-race congregation but at the same time in the same township one may find several black churches, white churches, Hispanic churches or Asian churches. Why is this? Left alone, which is the proper role of government, some people prefer mingling among people with whom they feel they have more in common. This is the result of individual free choice and not government “churching.” (Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state. tr.v. churched, church·ing, church·es)
    For example, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is listed as part of the fellowship affiliated with the United Church of Christ denomination. The denomination as a whole is “predominantly white.” Yet, the Trinity Church, in which the Obama’s held membership under Jeremiah Wright, is “predominantly black.” This grouping is the outcome based upon freedom.
    Typical for liberal Democrats and socialists, the Obama’s appreciated the free choice, but through HUD are denying other Americans that same freedom in choosing a place to live.

    Outlook.comYahoo MailShare
  • July9th


    by Bill Lockwood

    The Issue Definedpremill.illus

    The word “Premillennial” has two components: (1) Pre; meaning “before” and (2) Millennial; meaning 1,000 years. It suggests that Christ will return to the earth just prior to a 1,000 year reign. It contains several ideas. According to Ernest Kevan in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (352) it is “held that the OT prophets predicted the re-establishment of David’s kingdom and that Christ intended to bring this about. It is alleged, however, that because the Jews refused his person and work he postponed the establishment of his kingdom until the time of his return. Meanwhile, it is argued, the Lord gathered together ‘the church’ as a kind of interim measure.”

    This theory includes that in the future the Jews will return to the land of Israel; that Jesus will establish a physical kingdom after fighting physical battles and that these events have been in the immediate future since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. It is good to be reminded that Premillennialism is not the common doctrine of the early church (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Part IV, p. 861.

    Problems with Premillennialism

    The entire theory is freighted with Jewish doctrine and ideas that flatly contradict Scripture as a whole. In the following we are only examining textual problems associated with the book of Revelation. Not included here is the multitude of theological errors posed by premillennialism. What textual problems are there?

    (1) Premillennial theorists uniformly remove chapters 4-19 from the immediate context of the book of Revelation. No justification, textual or otherwise, is ever offered for this maneuver. John Hagee does this (Four Blood Moons, 91; see also Mark Hitchcock, Blood Moons Rising, 19; and John Walvoord, Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis, p. 102, 171-72, 178). This is totally arbitrary and reflects merely the whim of the theorist. It substitutes fanciful unfounded caprice for sober exegesis.

    (2) Premillennial writers universally insist upon the rule that all passages in the Bible must be literally understood. The late John Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary, for example, pronounces that “The study of these [biblical prophecies, bl] demonstrates that when prophecy is fulfilled, it is fulfilled literally” (Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis, 21). Walvoord is one of the premier leaders in the premillennial school. All others dutifully follow this capricious rule. Mark Hitchcock, for instance, insists upon this throughout Blood Moons Rising (p. 31, 45, 48, 71, 106, et. al.). However, no Bible passage states that this is the manner in which prophecies are to be understood. This is unreasonable. The Bible itself tells us that prophets spoke in various times and in various manners (Heb. 1:1,2). God did not reveal His message in one way. All prophecy should be interpreted in the same manner (literal) only if all prophecy was spoken in the same manner! But this is to contradict the Bible itself. The result of this “rule” ends in fantastic unfounded theories.

    (3) Premillennialists use fanciful interpretations of the text as a template for the rest of the Bible. Again, no justification for this—only the unbending will of the future theorist. Mark Hitchcock announces: “Using Revelation as a framework, a Bible student is able to harmonize the hundreds of other biblical passages that speak of the seven-year tribulation into a clear model of the next time period for planet earth. With such a template to guide us, we can see that already God is preparing or setting the stage of the world in which the great drama of the tribulation will unfold.” (Blood Moons Rising, quoting another with approval, p. 19).  Again, this is fanciful and arbitrary. The common and well-grounded method of interpretation of Bible material is that “the Bible is to be interpreted in the same manner … by the same principles” of other books (Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 173). It seems too simplistic to point out that words are to be understood in their primary meaning unless the nature of the literature demands differently. And this is precisely what Revelation tells us: that the message is in “signs and symbols” (Rev. 1:1-3). Why then insist upon using Revelation as a “template” of literal meaning and force other Bible passages within its mold? It can only be to uphold false theories.

    Outlook.comYahoo MailShare
  • June30th

    by Bill Lockwood

    obamagayWho would have guessed that the “Shining City on the Hill” would have descended into the sewers of Sodom? But that is precisely what has occurred with the once-free America. Slavery to sin and corruption has officially begun with last week’s Supreme Court ruling. Servitude by the states to the Homosexual Agenda became official U.S. policy in which “rights” to same-sex marriage were “newly minted” by the dictatorship of the High Court. States cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions. Obergefell v. Hodges became a historic moment.

    The Bible is exceedingly clear that homosexuality is an “unnatural” impurity. Leviticus 18 catalogs some of the more heinous crimes about which the Israelites were severely warned. “Defile not yourselves in an of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you: and the land is defiled … and the land vomits out her inhabitants” (24,25).

    Again God warned: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled; that land vomit not you out also, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (27, 28).

    To what vices did God refer? Among the more prominent were: Homosexuality. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination” (v. 22). “If  a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination …”  (v. 13). Under Old Testament Israelite law they were to be put to death.

    In the New Testament the inspired Paul wrote that the “unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Among those to whom he refers are the “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). “Effeminate” is a biblical euphemism for one who plays the “female role” in a homosexual relationship and allows other men to violate his anus. “Abusers of themselves with mankind” is one Greek word which signifies the homosexual who violates another man’s body.

    One commentator wrote about the “confusion” of homosexuality. “A horrible confusion of natures which God distinguished, and order which God appointed, the overthrow of all bounds of religion, honesty, sobriety, and modesty.” Israelite kings in the Old Testament did not heed God’s warnings as Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:6) actually institutionalized homosexuality along with the slaughtering of children. Truly, it was mass confusion and Israel lost her land possession due to the seriousness of these crimes.


    Under Obama’s wicked leadership America has also overthrown all bounds of religion, honesty, sobriety, modesty, and decency. As Christians always suspected and David Axelrod, Obama’s former chief advisor,  confirmed, Obama lied during the 2008 presidential campaign at the behest of his political handlers. Axelrod wrote, “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union.’”

    Lying Obama, who tweeted that “Love Wins” has always been a supporter of Sodomy. Fabricating and lying is “love” in his book. Sadly, thousands of black Christians voted for the liar-in-chief, apparently due to his skin color which trumps even God’s Word in their minds. Myriads of ill-informed white Christians voted the same thinking that having a black president would somehow quiet the left on racist charges. What monumental miscalculations.

    How did all of this occur? In three easy steps. One, equal rights for all races and peoples enforced by the federal government—14th Amendment. Two, the cultural acceptance of homosexuality as something with which one is born. Homosexual practice is counted as a minority classification or “orientation” instead of immoral behavior and choice. It is supposedly not a choice that people make. Three, put these together and give us a pro-homosexual socialist for president and one finds the SCOTUS ruling.

    Where did society err? For err it did. It is in number two above. The cultural acceptance of homosexuality as an “orientation”—something with which you are born—and not a preference or choice. This is the politically-correct and scarcely questioned axiom which is enforced by government ostracizing. Homosexuality however, is not in the genetic makeup of individuals but is an immoral choice that people make.

    Until 1973 homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association as a Mental Disorder. But by a vote of psychiatrists that year following intense political pressure from homosexual activists who had stormed one of their meetings and shouted down the opposition homosexuality was removed from the “Sexual Disorder” list.

    “The decision of the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from its published list of sexual disorders in 1973 was scarcely a cool, scientific decision,” confesses Jeffrey Weeks, founder-editor of the Gay Left. “It was a response to a political campaign fueled by the belief that its original inclusion as a disorder was a reflection of an oppressive politico-medical definition as a problem.”

    In other words, the decision to accept homosexuality in American culture as an “orientation” had nothing at all to do with science. Nor did it come about because, as one wrote, “a group of doctors suddenly changed their views.” Instead, it followed an aggressive and sustained campaign by homosexual activists utilizing hard-ball political tactics. And if one thinks that it all will stop with the SCOTUS ruling and that the Homosexual Marxist Network will honor religious liberty that person is ignorant of the wiles of Satan and the homosexual agenda.

    When Barack Obama became president this day was on the radar. Illuminating the White House with rainbow-colored lights signals the irreversible cesspool of filth into which this president has led us. But be sure: the land will vomit you out.

    Outlook.comYahoo MailShare
  • June24th

    by Bill Lockwood

    leeflagThe New York Times reports that, “What began as scattered calls for removing the Confederate battle flag from a single state capitol intensified with striking speed and scope on Tuesday into an emotional, nationwide movement to strip symbols of the Confederacy from public parks and buildings, license plates, Internet shopping sites and retail stores.” The ostensible reason is that “images of the Confederacy” are viewed as “painful symbols of slavery, racism and white dominance.” Apparently, losing the War Between the States has not been enough for the Southern states, they must eternally do obeisance before the god-makers and idol craftsmen of the left. Visitors to Washington, D.C. will bow before images of socialist big-government heroes such as Franklin Roosevelt. Before our culture runs over the cliff like the demon-possessed herd of swine in Jesus’ day (Mark 5;12,13) because of the Confederate flag, it might be beneficial to our rational processes to think about Islam for a moment.

    Crescent Moon and Star?

    The crescent moon and star symbols on the Islamic flag have been associated with Islam since the Ottoman Empire. Without controversy the religion of Islam and the Quran itself has spawned the most vicious killing around the world throughout history and in our current world. Bold are the declarations in the Quran advocating slavery. Surah 58:3, for example, encourages Muslims to own slaves, whether by purchase or spoils of war. It is not too much to say that slavery is imbedded in the heart of Islam.

    Muhammad himself owned many male and female slaves. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, one of great chroniclers of Islam and historians said, “Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) then he sold, especially after God empowered him by his message….He once sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir….He (Muhammad) was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out.”

    Muhammad owned a black slave named Mahran, who was renamed by Muhammad Safina (‘a ship’). Mahran himself relates why. “The apostle of God and his companions went on a trip. When their belongings became too heavy for them to carry, Muhammad told me, ‘Spread your garment.’ They filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The apostle of God told me, ‘Carry (it), for you are a ship.’ Even if I was carrying the load of six or seven donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load. The prophet told me, ‘You are a ship.’”

    The question therefore becomes, if the liberal left is serious about eradicating “symbols” that are associated with slavery or racism, will they also call for a ban of Islamic symbols? Will there be calls for the removal of the crescent moon and star from America? Hardly. The legs of the lame are not equal.

    Outlook.comYahoo MailShare
  • June24th

    by Bill Lockwood

    israellanddeedA widely held belief in the religious world is that the promise to Abraham regarding the land of Israel was not based on any condition whatever and that it was to be “eternal.” God spoke to Abraham in (Genesis 12:2,3) “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Verse 7 reads that the Lord promised Abraham, “To your offspring I will give this land.” Again, “The Lord said to Abram, … ‘Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, … for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever.” The same promise was repeated in Gen. 17:8.

    Noted Baptist preacher of yesteryear John R. Rice argued in 1935 that this was not conditional upon the Jews’ obedience. John Walvoord, the late Baptist theologian of Dallas Theological Seminary, insisted the same. “What is even more interesting is that by the time of Genesis 17 the ultimate outcome of the covenant was clearly not conditional upon later obedience. The covenant was described as an everlasting covenant, and the land of Canaan promised as an everlasting possession” (Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis, revised 1990, p. 69).

    What of These Things?

    First, “everlasting” or “eternal” is sometimes used in Scripture to refer simply to “perpetual.” Regarding this word, hear Vine’s Expository Dictionary (p. 373): “Eternal describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; …” It is simply “undefined.” For example, the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham (Gen. 17:9-13) was to be “an everlasting covenant.” But the NT shows that that covenant of circumcision has been removed and is no longer valid (Gal. 5:2). So also the Sabbath day was established with Israel as a “covenant forever” (Exodus 31:16). But the Sabbath day law was nailed to the cross and is no longer valid (Col. 2:14-16). If one can understand how the forever rite of circumcision is no longer valid or that the Sabbath day has been replaced when it was to be forever one can understand how the land promise to Abraham’s children does not necessarily mean that it continues to be valid today.

    Second, the “land promise” vouchsafed to Abraham was CONDITIONAL. When Israel finally entered the promised land in the days of Joshua, he stood before the people and declared that “all of the land” which had been promised had been delivered to them by God (Josh 21:43-45). Nehemiah later confessed in prayer to God that God “had performed his promises” to Israel in giving them the land (Neh. 9:7,8).

    But Moses, just before they entered Canaan insisted that the promise was conditional upon their continual obedience to God (Deut. 4:20-23).  “IF you will not listen diligently these curses shall be upon you” (Deut. 28:15); “whereas ye were numerous as the stars of heaven…because you would not obey the voice of the Lord thy God… ye shall be plucked off the land whither you go in to possess it” (28:62,63).  Subsequent Israelite history shows they were indeed disobedient and therefore lost their inheritance.

    The land of Israel was lost because of Israel’s disobedience. It is error to teach that Jews still have a title from God to the property known as Israel.

    Outlook.comYahoo MailShare
This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro