• Featured Content
  • June30th

    by Bill Lockwood



    Who 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • June19th

     by Bill Lockwood

    PopeJohn"Carl"Marx_IllusCaritas Internationalis is the Vatican’s top social justice organization comprised of 162 Catholic organizations that operate in over 200 countries. It is officially listed as a member of the World Social Forum, one of the foremost Marxist groups in the world. Caritas is not only a member, but is on the International Council for the WSF. These facts alone demonstrate the communist orientation of the Roman Catholic Church.
    According to the American Life League, a Catholic organization itself, Caritas is providing leadership to further the Marxist agenda worldwide. The ALL has recently provided a 76-page PowerPoint presentation demonstrating the fact that “The New World Pope” Francis, formerly known as Jorge Bergoglio, is utilizing unsubstantiated climate change hysteria to promote a World Socialist Government.
    The author of the report, Michael Hichborn, stated, “This is a very serious problem. Given how intimately connected the World Social Forum (WSF) has been with the promotion of communism, abortion, and homosexuality since the very beginning, it’s impossible to see how any Catholic can participate in it, or even speak positively about it, let alone have any involvement in its governance. But Caritas Internationalis does!”
    The Red Vatican!
    Hichborn’s PowerPoint is well-documented and thoroughly researched. Included in the PowerPoint presentation is the WSF website from 2004 in which Caritas is listed as a sponsor. Among other things, Caritas and WFS promote, “How to Redistribute Wealth & Power Globally.”
    The WSF in 2002 featured speakers who advocated abortion and homosexuality. Catholic Workshops in 2003 listed the following topics: “Ecology & Eco-Socialism; Sustainability,” “Feminism & Socialism—Challenges in Socialist Feminism,” “Homosexuality: Without homophobia, another world is possible,” “Sexual Rights,” and “Abortion.” Catholic emphasis is upon the universal right to these crimes against God.
    One of the highlighted speakers at a recent Caritas conference was Jeffrey Sachs. In his recent book The Age of Sustainable Development, whose forward was authored by the United Nations’ Ban Ki-Moon, Sachs openly condemns the free market and presses for a world government that will assist in transferring American wealth on a global scale. The United States, according to Sachs, is the chief of environmental sinners (p. 394) and its citizens must learn to live “sustainably!” (p. 485).
    Apparently the Roman Catholic Church, continually using the communistic model for people control, is vying for top leadership in the forming world socialistic government. An Investor’s Business Daily editorial in December, 2014 noted the following:
    “The Vatican apparently now has been infiltrated by followers of a radical green movement that is, at its core, anti-Christian, anti-people, anti-poor and anti-development. The basic tenets of Catholicism—the sanctity of human life and the value of all souls—are detested by the modern pagan environmentalists who worship the created, but not the creator. At is core, Big Green believes that too many human beings are the basic global problem. People, according to this view, are resource destroyers. Climate change, they say, is due to the overpopulation of Mother Earth. The head of the Catholic Church should denounce—not praise—such anti-human thinking…Instead, the pope unwittingly has linked arms with the people who have provided finance, intellectual credibility and applause for radical and immoral population-control policies including eugenics, millions of forced abortions and sterilization, and one-child policies, all in the same of ‘saving the planet.”

  • June7th

    by Bill Lockwood

    EraseConstKevin M. Kruse, professor of history at Princeton University, authors a new 2015 book entitled, One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. His argument, wholly dependent upon the ignorance of Americans to understand the nature of our governing system as crafted by the Founders of the Nation, is that the notion of a “Christian America” is a recent invention, originating in the 1930’s by self-interested businessmen who linked with gullible clergy to oppose FDR’s New Deal.
    Illustrative of his wrong-headed thesis, Kruse describes the Declaration of Independence as having been “reframed” by a large coterie of preachers and money-loving corporate heads in the 1950’s as “a purely libertarian manifesto, dedicated to the removal of an oppressive government.” It was not that at all, argues Kruse.
    A 1951 Committee to Proclaim Liberty, criticized by Kruse, “focused solely on the preamble” of the Declaration due to its “famous and lyrical” passages, but “those who have read the entire document,” asserts Kruse, will discover “that the founding fathers followed the high-flown prose of the preamble with a long list of grievances about the absence of government and rule of law in the colonies.”
    King George was criticized in the Declaration, per the professor, for “refusing ‘his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good,’” and for “generally enabling a state of anarchy” in the colonies.
    “In the end,” concludes Kruse, “the Declaration was not a rejection of government power in general but a condemnation of the British crown for depriving the colonists of the government they needed.” This all led to a “pinched interpretation” which conservatives share today.
    What Shall We Say?
    First, Kruse reverses history. The taste in one’s mouth after reading Kruse’s treatment of the Declaration is that Jefferson and the colonists were grieved by the lack of government control in the New World. Too weak of a government from London. It takes a professor from Princeton to push this one off upon readers. Just a bit more assertiveness from the crown would be just right! No wonder the collegiate class of American citizens have become vastly confused.
    Second, Kruse de-emphasizes the Preamble. As others before him have done Kruse gives short shrift to the preamble and instead selects a couple of lines from the list of grievances to make it sound as if resistance to big government has little foundation in the pen of Thomas Jefferson and the Founders.
    Jefferson had actually copied his own drafts of the Virginia Constitution and his Summary View of the Rights of British America in the list of “grievances” in the Declaration. But these grievances did not in themselves justify separation from England as the Founders would announce in the final paragraph. What required the bulk of his seventeen days in writing the Declaration was the philosophical foundation for that separation. The Preamble.
    To the disappointment of the Kruse’s of the world, this is why the Preamble is more frequently referenced in continual cycles of history. The specific grievances against an over-reaching government may continue to change; but the principles laid out in the Preamble are eternal and ever-applicable.
    Yet Kruse supposes that we could all discover “something rather different” if we would read the entire document. It is a mistaken idea to think that the Founders were “dedicated to the removal of an oppressive government,” opines Kruse. It is difficult to trust an historian that so completely ignores the very purpose of the Declaration.
    Third, Kruse re-casts the nature of the grievances. No one argues, for instance, that the Declaration is a rejection of “government power in general.” No one of the Founders so thought. But for Kruse to structure the Founders’ grievances as a desire for more government to oppose the “state of anarchy” in the colonies as if King George had absented himself from his lawful duties is another crass re-writing of history.
    Jefferson was clear. Government is designed to protect the God-given given rights of people; Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (“pursuit of happiness” written as “property” 2x in the Constitution). Governments that grow too big and become “destructive of these ends” need to be replaced by systems in keeping with God-given principles.
    The colonists would have been satisfied had the crown remained within its legal boundaries. The “absence of government” and “rule of law” in the colonies, about which Kruse misleads, really was the disallowance of Self-government as had been promised in the several colonial charters. But upon reading Kruse’s statements one might glean the idea that the patriots of 1776 simply desired a more assertive British crown to quell the “state of anarchy” existing on American shores! Kruse apparently appreciates a socialistic style government under an arbitrary and despotic crown.

  • June6th

    by Bill Lockwood

    Shemitah.IllusEvery seventh year the Israelites were to allow their fields to lie fallow. “You may plant your land for six years and gather its crops. But during the seventh year, you must leave it alone and withdraw from it. The needy among you will then be able to eat just as you do, and whatever is left over can be eaten by wild animals. This also applies to your vineyard and your olive grove” (Exodus 23:10–11).
    This sabbatical year was known also as “The Shemitah,” the Hebrew word meaning “release.” “At the end of every seven years, you shall celebrate the remission year. The idea of the remission year is that every creditor shall remit any debt owed by his neighbor and brother when God’s remission year comes around. You may collect from the alien, but if you have any claim against your brother for a debt, you must relinquish it. …” (Deuteronomy 15:1–6).
    New York Times best-selling author Jonathan Cahn has issued a 2015 warning based on this seven year “biblical cycle” that America will see economic disaster, war in the Middle East, or worse (Charismanews, 3-10-15). Blood Moon prognosticator John Hagee of San Antonio bases dire predictions for the world (“the world will change forever” Four Blood Moons, 229) based upon the Jewish calendar.
    Note the Following:
    Several things need be observed regarding these types of predictions. First, to Apply Jewish Sabbatical Years to Modern Events is Fanciful Thinking. No New Testament text or inspired writer ever faintly alludes to such a timetable. Further, not a single Old Testament text justifies utilizing the “sabbatical year” for anything other than that which is explicitly stated: allowing the crops to lie fallow and releasing individuals from debt. Biblical justification for such a scenario is completely and totally absent.
    Second, the Bible Explicitly Teaches that the Old Testament was Completely Fulfilled by Christ and was Removed. Jesus announced that he had come the first time to “fulfill the law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17). He further pointed out in the same text that ALL of it was to pass when SOME of it passed. “One jot or one tittle [smallest strokes of Hebrew alphabet] shall in no wise pass away until all things are accomplished.” If any of the law has passed, all of it has. And we are informed that that law was “nailed to the cross” (Col. 2:14). Hebrews 9:9,10 show that in order to establish the second law (Christ’s law) the first had to be removed. Even the purpose of the Shemitah has passed and is no longer a valid system before God.

This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro