Patriots4Liberty
  • Featured Content
  • 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 organization to step in and assist people by its generosity.

    Francis’ fuller May suggestions were these: “I do not hesitate to state . . . that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

     

    What Shall We Say to These Things?

     

    First, Francis shows vast confusion on the gospel as well as socialism/communism. The gospel of Jesus Christ preaches the caring for the poor; but that is a private enterprise that is fostered by the teaching of the precepts of our Lord. “State” or “Government” redistribution—which is forcible by the very nature of the case– by-passes teaching and instruction and utilizes the strong arm of a government that removes property from one and hands it to another. This is the very definition of PLUNDER, which is the root of Socialism. It is the difference between Jesus Christ and Robin Hood. For Francis to call this “the gospel” demonstrates confusion at best, deception at worst.

    William Godwin’s Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793) may have been the first treatise on social justice. It is definitive. Per Godwin we do NOT have a right to do what we will with our own and “sees transfers of material benefits to the less fortunate not simply as a matter of humanity but as a matter of justice” (Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions). Godwin thought that this transfer of material goods was a “debt” in the sense that it implied “the expansion of the governmental domain to produce social results to which particular individuals and groups are morally entitled.”

    According to the National Association of Scholars the term “social justice” means the “advocacy of more egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.” In other words, what I own or have accumulated does NOT rightly belong to me at all but to the masses of poor as a matter of right. Massive government is required to enforce this redistribution. A remodeling of society. The Pope calls this “holistic social engineering” the gospel of Jesus Christ. What a perversion!

    Second, Francis denies the biblical principle of private ownership of property. One of the root laws undergirding biblical as well as civil law is “thou shalt not steal.” This clearly implies that there are some things which belong to me which should be guarded by law. Another simple biblical concept is that “if a man does not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). These two passages alone should forestall groups of men utilizing force of law to accomplish a redistribution which, if practiced by an individual alone would constitute criminal activity.

    The Pope might think that his recommendation of THEFT (redistribution of resources begins with plundering those resources) can be hidden under the subterfuge of a government body actually doing the dirty work. But this is no different than King David using the resources of his army to murder Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. Uriah may have been killed in battle with the Ammonites and by the Ammonite sword, but David’s engineering of this tragedy did not abdicate him of responsibility.

    So exactly with Pope Francis. To call for a “legitimate redistribution of resources by the State” cancels the biblical principle of private ownership of property while participating in the socialistic tactic of using the force of State to do it. This is not really “caring for the poor” as much as it is a disdaining of God.

     

    Share
  • November18th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    So-called “free trade,” insisted Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848, “breaks up old nationalities. In a word, free trade system hastens social revolution.” Marx considered his social-economic worldview as inherently “at war” with free society. As in all wars, stock-in-trade tactics must include lying and deceit. So it is with “free trade.” Free it is not.

    Tyson Marker, in the flagship journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Foreign Affairs, explains the aim of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) now promoted by President Obama. “In the broadest terms, a U.S.-E.U. trade deal would allow the United States and Europe to maintain their sway over global economic governance. Both recognize that their ability to set global rules will diminish as economic power shifts to the Asia-Pacific region. In the coming decade, no one power will be able to drive the international agenda. But if they join forces, the United States and Europe can channel their combined economic weight to keep control of the global economic order.” (Quoted by Arthur Thompson, in International Merger by Foreign Entanglements).

    Development of global economic rules is the goal. Placing America and other regions of the world beneath the behemoth of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the methodology. Revoking the plain language of the Constitution, which gives exclusive power to the Congress (representatives of the people) the sole authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations,” is the traitorous result.

    The two primary “free trade agreements” that are now on the table include the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Both “treaties” subvert our Constitution by placing the United States under the authority of unelected and unaccountable supranational “tribunals” which by design will trump U.S. law in favor of “global rules” and “regulations.” The fact that these arrangements are currently being drafted in “secret” does not enhance more confidence.

    In 1994, then Congressman Newt Gingrich, who favored U.S. submersion into the WTO, sounded this dire warning: “I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment.” Indeed. He warned, then voted in favor. Demonstrable fact is this that both parties have calculated plans to subvert our U.S. Constitution.

    In the same poisonous vein, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already been holding President Obama’s hand on this. “Send us trade agreements,” he urged the president. This is illustrative again of the fact that the Free Trade Agenda’s are not a respecter of parties: both Republicans and Democrats are guilty. So much for the Republican rail against Obama’s lack of “transparency.” Global Rules results in loss of freedom.

    Share
  • November14th

    Bill Lockwood

     

    The disdain President Obama holds for the American voter knows no bounds. Hardboiled contempt for the average citizen is how Jonathan Gruber, MIT economist and the chief architect of Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare, presents himself and fellow Democrats in a 2013 conference. That the Democratic Party, which crammed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) down America’s throat, shares in this elitist scorn for the “stupid American” taxpayer is beyond question. Lying and dissimulation were the deliberate sinister strategies used to pass ObamaCare. Exactly what conservatives and Tea-Partiers have always stated. Here are Gruber’s words from one of the recorded clips:

    This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass….Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.

    Non-transparent Obama even used sleight of hand on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). HotAir blog writes,

    The CBO did a lot more than just decide whether or not to score the mandate as a tax, though. Democrats insisted that CBO’s initial scoring showed that the bill was deficit-neutral in its first ten years, thanks to transparently self-serving dodges like trawling revenue before making outlays a few years later. How much else did Democrats lie to get that initially positive scoring? How much else are Democrats still hiding about the ACA and the HHS implementation of it?
    Why is anyone shocked? Obama himself studied and taught the communistic Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals which is the textbook on how to redistribute wealth and deceive the voter. Ethics are elastic and everything… Everything—is about power and self-interest. To successfully manipulate others while he enslaves America beneath the thumb of socialism is the ulterior motive of the Alinskyite Obama.

    Yet, in spite of all of this purposeful fraud and deception by the Democratic Party and its liar-in-chief, pundits are suggesting that the average American wishes the Democrats and Republicans to sit down and “work together.” Nonsense. Repeal ObamaCare and Impeach Obama. These are impeachable offenses. Democrats suffered a bludgeoning in the past election because Americans see that the entire Democratic Party has been an accomplice in the destruction of America. Besides, Democrats have designed that the worst portions of ObamaCare have still to be implemented and thereby continue to this moment deluding the American people. What kind of “communion” can be had with this kind of darkness?

    Trey Gowdy, a representative of South Carolina, counseled that Republicans ought not impeach the president because that would mean Joe Biden would be president! What of rule of law, Mr. Gowdy? Perhaps if Biden’s leader was impeached he himself might be less inclined to scorn the American people by the pompous dissimulation to which he is accustomed. The Constitution empowered the people’s representatives to bring impeachment charges against derelict officers. Obama is not merely derelict, he is an avowed enemy of freedom.

    The primary reason that Obama rolled out the ACA in the disastrous fashion he did, when even Barney Frank confesses it was not ready, is because he counts on the fact that all the American people will not only be “stupid” enough to accept it, but too weak to repeal it.

     

    Share
  • November4th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    The cultural divide splitting our once-proud nation apart at the seams is homosexuality. A nation that once honoured God is now transmuting itself into a modern Sodom with the heavy-hand of ungodliness crushing the vibrant spirit of righteousness. Unlike any other social issue, homosexuality that embeds itself in a culture by means of law is a certain sign that God has “given up” that society and turned it over to the dustbin of history. “Wherefore God gave them up in the desires of their hearts unto uncleanness” (Rom. 1:24, see also v. 26, 28) is followed by a clear denunciation of the sin of homosexuality.

     

    Though homosexuality has existed for ages, and has been in America since its founding, it never was given special status via law until recent years. This Satanic revolution has been presided over by Barack Obama. The anti-Christian fallout is already occurring.

     

    First, there was the case of Jack Phillips, a suburban Denver cake-baker who, for biblically-grounded conscientious grounds, refused to celebrate homosexual marriages by means of his trade. Phillips stated that he was deeply religious and that baking a cake for a “gay couple” would violate his Christian principles. First Amendment rights are eradicated as an administrative law judge ruled against Phillips. The case is on appeal and represents a handful of other similar cases in various states in which business owners are being forced to violate their Christian principles by the strong arm of Obama’s government.

     

    Then came the Houston City Ordinance case last month. Led by the lesbian mayor Annise Parker the Houston City Council subpoenaed sermons and private emails of churches in the Houston area for openly opposing the direction of the City.

     

    Hundreds of churches became involved in a citywide campaign to repeal the “equal rights ordinance,” signed into law by Parker in May, that grants transgender people access to the restroom of their choice in public buildings and businesses, excluding churches. Though the law was apparently not implemented, ministers of Houston rightly mounted the podium and thundered against the anti-Christian agenda, including calling out the sin of homosexuality.

     

    At that point the City Council, in clear violation of religious freedom and free speech, subpoenaed the sermons of five local churches, including their email missives and correspondences related to the issue. Then on October 29 Mayor Parker announced she was directing the city of Houston to rescind subpoenas issued to the five pastors saying, quite disingenuously, “it was never our intention to interfere with clergy and their congregations.” She added, “I don’t want to have a national debate on freedom of religion when my purpose is to defend … a city ordinance.” Frame it how she will, it was a blatant interference with religious freedom, which is apparently what the leadership of America favors nowadays. Just as deceitful is her explanation that “this is not about silencing my critics; this is about doing the right thing.” Silencing the Christian voice is indeed the cultural norm.

     

    Now comes the news that six sitting county magistrates have resigned over the past several weeks in North Carolina over the issue of being forced to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. One County Magistrate, Judge Gilbert Breedlove, having served in office for almost 25 years, resigned his position when a federal court struck down North Carolina’s voter-passed constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. Breedlove is from Swain County.

     

    Earlier, Rockingham County Magistrate John Kallam, Jr. resigned his position for the same reason. Stating resolutely that being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies “would desecrate a holy institution established by God Himself.” Would that preachers in all the pulpits would stand so boldly. Following the resignation of these magistrates, Christian Headline News has reported that four others have also resigned their posts.

     

    One of those four, Gayle Myrick, Union County Magistrate, told a local reporter the following: “For me to do what the state said I had to do, under penalty of law, I would have to go against my convictions, and I was not willing to do that. I want to honor what the Word says.”

     

    The question is fast becoming in America: Will we honor God or the State? In days gone by one could do both and retain a clear conscience. Not any longer. Welcome to Obama’s America.

     

     

    Share
  • October15th

    Bill Lockwood

     

    The opening shot in the final struggle for western culture was fired this week by the City of Houston. Led by Annise Parker, the lesbian mayor who married Kathy Hubbard in Palm Springs, California earlier this year, city attorneys “subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose homosexuality.” According to the Houston Chronicle,

    Houston’s embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city.

    Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case’s discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

    It began when the city of Houston passed a controversial non-discrimination ordinance which would allow males to use the ladies room, and vice versa. A subsequent opposition petition was thrown out on a supposed technicality. After a lawsuit was filed against the ordinance the city responded with the subpoena for sermons.

    What shall we say to these things?

     

    Obama’s Houston

     

    First, let all take note of the nature of the Homosexual Movement in America. Bent on absolutely destroying our culture, the homosexual agenda in America includes the complete dismantling of any vestige of Christianity. It is at its core a hard-nosed political movement which, along with its leader, Barack Obama, desires a fundamental transformation of America.

    This is important to bear in mind since shallow-thinking commentators from the left and the right continue to drone on about how two homosexuals “living next door” in peace will not harm anyone else from their own home. This drivel is about as sophomoric as it comes. The entire issue is NOT about “living in peace” and dignity. It is about transforming the fabric of our culture into a Gestapo state that prosecutes any “speech” that the cultural leaders find objectionable. Homosexuality has never been about “live and let live.” Anyone who casually reads their literature knows this to be the case.

    Pink totalitarian tactics is also what Obama himself has already practiced. When he initially took office the president refused to enforce the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) laws and further mandated that foreign countries demonstrate “homosexual rights” before receiving any unconstitutional foreign aid money. The entire atmosphere of Obama’s America is antagonistic to godliness and the freedom that springs therefrom. It is only in this claustrophobic climate of political correctness that such stifling of free speech can thrive. This is Obama’s Houston.

    Second, Houston’s mandate against preachers demonstrates why it is not the business of government to define HATE. Republicans as well as Democrats have foolishly legislated against “Hate Crimes” in America. Violent acts against the person of another are easily discerned by our law code. But what about “hate?” What about “anger?” This reaches into motive and depends upon who is doing the defining.

    According to the FBI “Hate Crimes” add an element of bias to crimes which is declared to be “toxic to our communities.” They cite lynchings and cross-burnings as examples. The problem with enhancing penalties to a “lynching” for example, based upon the “hateful” motive of the one doing the lynching, is that sooner or later our culture will begin to penalize the motive itself and begin proscribing what it considers to be the instigator of that particular crime: Speech and expressed thought. Now we not only have “enhanced penalties” for “hate crimes” but an entire separate category of “crime.” Hate. But this all depends upon who is doing the defining, doesn’t it? Now, reading Romans chapter one fits into that category.

    Third, this is the very reason the framers of our country mandated by Constitutional Law a limited federal government. Even though the city of Houston is obviously not the federal government, the same scenario is being played out at the federal level, as noted above. The strong arm of the government might lend a benevolent hand. But that again depends upon the nature of those in leadership positions. Once those positions morph into “power positions” instead of “service positions” all are at the complete mercy of those in power. To repeat: this is exactly why the Founders of our nation consciously created a small central government with limited functions. As Jefferson stated, “In questions of power … let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution” (Kentucky Resolutions, 1798). Unfortunately, we have not heeded well.

    Fourth, consider possible ramifications at a practical level. Will churches be forced to turn in Bibles? After all, the Bible itself is the source material for sermons showing the sin of homosexuality. Will Annise Parker, the mayor, begin confiscating Bibles? Shall we send her some with the appropriate passages highlighted?

    Will the city fathers and mothers of Houston be examining what is being preached in the mosques? Will Islam come under fire on this one? Probably not, since terrorists are sprouting in these facilities and the Obama Administration has already declared a “hands off” policy there.

    Does the city sweep include guest preachers who have visited Houston churches but who live elsewhere? Speaking of elsewhere, will other cities follow suit and begin their own purges? Will government overseers begin “policing the pulpit?”

    It is truly heart-wrenching that not only is America turning into a Gestapo-state right before our eyes, but many preachers have not been vocal enough. They have already stuffed a sock in their mouths. One of my collegiate instructors of yesteryear would ask in class, “If there was a bloody persecution against the church and Christians, would there be enough evidence to convict YOU?” Regrettably, many will have to answer: ‘No, there is not.’ The hour is late. It is time for men of God to rise up and preach boldly, subpoena or no subpoena.

     

     

     

    Share
  • October9th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Are public schools becoming indoctrination factories for Marxist brainwashing? Hearing students at Ivy League Universities recently spout anti-American sentiment that echoes the propaganda of Chairman Mao is enough to forewarn parents about who is in control at the collegiate level. However, it comes with even greater angst to discover that the public educational system as a whole seems to be tracking in the same far leftist direction.

    This is not to indict any particular individual teacher or group of them. Most are concerned patriotic Americans who wish to provide the best instruction for students. But it is past time to question the general policies and policy-makers who give the entire system direction. A similar stance can be taken regarding our military. Our fighting men and women of the armed services are the greatest and most honorable patriots in the country. But that is not to say that we agree with the foreign and domestic policies that are set in place by the civilian internationalists who guide their actions.

    According to many observers, the Educational Complex as a whole is assisting to ruin our nation. CSCOPE came and supposedly went in Texas, along with its pro-Marxist lessons which, in one lesson, constructed an economic ladder for High Schooler’s that presented “Communism” at the top and “Free-Market Economics” at the bottom. This denigrating nonsense was designed to show what great things can be accomplished when America opts out of freedom and climbs up to communism.

    Forty-four states were bribed by the federal government with taxpayer money to adopt Common Core standards. These completely by-pass and displace parental guidance even in sexual matters. The National Health and Education Standards, which is hard-wired into Common Core, indoctrinates children as early as K-2d grade to “identify different types of family structures.” By 5th grade the student is expected to define sexual attraction even to those of the same gender. This is social engineering after the order of Sodom, and certainly does not qualify as education.

     

    Colorado

     

    Liberal experimentation with the minds of youth are now bearing fruits in Colorado, among other places. As long as self-described communists such as Bill Ayers is writing the curriculum, who could expect anything less? In Jefferson County students who have been taught to goose-step and hate America are protesting in masse against the inclusion of patriotism, respect for authority, free enterprise, and the positive aspects of American history.

    High School teacher Jay Bennish in Aurora, Colorado sounds as if he trained in the Lenin school for young Soviets. He compares George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler and lectured his 10th graders on the idiotic charges that the U.S. has engaged in “7,000 terrorist attacks against Cuba.”

    Then there is the school lunch program spearheaded by Michelle Obama. Schools from New Hampshire to Alabama, Missouri, and Pennsylvania are opting out of the program and are sacrificing federal dollars to do it. However, multitudes of schools continue to be straight-jacketed by the buy-off of federal money funneled to the states.

    Free speech is fast becoming a thing of the past as Live Oak High School students were told by school administrators not to wear American flags on Cinco de Mayo. It was thought that this might upset the Hispanic population at the school. So far, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stood by the school in this far-fetched scenario.

    And free speech for teachers is just as jeopardized by the federal takeover of education. An Alexandria, Louisiana teacher who criticized Common Core was “written up” for posting that comment on Facebook. Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana, is suing the Obama Administration for coercing the states into adopting the standards.

    And this is just the point. The Federal Government coerces and bribes, then shuts off all dissenting opinion. If the American people are ever going to enjoy the full measure of freedom gained by our forefathers and if we truly cherish academic freedom, we must STOP being bribed into obeisance at the federal money trough.

    Share
  • October4th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    One of the great hallmarks of our free society is the family unit. Planned by God as one man and one woman to bring children into the world (Gen. 2:24; 3:16,17), the family has been recognized as one of the basic building blocks of a Christian society. Jesus quotes Moses in Matt. 19:6. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” Even Thomas Jefferson, one of our great founding fathers, recognized the importance of a loving family relationship. “By the law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.”

     

    The family organization of Mom, Dad, and the Kids is under constant assault today. An area in which one finds this insidious attack is connected with the Common Core National Education Standards as written by the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers, which bills itself as a “non-partisan non-profit organization.” According to a Pearson Education website, “Common standards for health education, … have been in the works for years. Called The National Health and Education Standards (NHES), the requirements outlined include issues such as gender and sex, as well as sexual orientation.” Recently, Chicago area schools have announced that they are considering inclusion of these standards in their Common Core curriculum.

     

    If one clicks on the link of the NHES provided by Pearson, the browser is taken to a USA.gov link which outlines some of the “National Health Standards.” One of these is Standard #7: “The student will demonstrate the ability to practice health-enhancing behaviors and avoid or reduce health.” According to the National Sexuality Education Standards (also available online), one of the introductory paragraphs reads that these standards “were further informed by the work of the CDC’s Health Education Curriculum Analysis…the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12th grade; and the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, recently adopted by most states.”

     

    Common Core Sexuality Standards

     

    By second grade, the Common Core related standards want “students to use proper names for body parts, include male and female anatomy.” Under “Healthy Relationships” the standard says, “identify different kinds of family structures” as well as “demonstrate ways to show respect for different types of families.” One need not wonder to what this refers. Is our federal government pushing the biblical model for family? Hardly.

     

    By fifth grade, the education standards call for students to “Define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.” Students are then encouraged to “identify parents or trusted adults” of whom the student can ask questions “about sexual orientation.” Not only this but students are to “Demonstrate ways to treat others with dignity and respect.”

     

    Setting aside the wisdom and propriety of sex education, even at the second grade level, this is bare-knuckled indoctrination that oversteps the God-ordained authority of parental guidance in the teaching of their children. And since these are national standards, created on the top-down model of authoritarian governmental control, there will be no recourse to the local principal, school board, or even state education guidelines. Under the umbrella of Common Core the very CORE of our society—the family, is under assault.

     

     

    Share
  • September23rd

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    President Obama authoritatively instructs America on what is, and is not, Islam. “Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al-Qaeda’ affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” I used to think that President Obama himself was not a Muslim, only a hardened Marxist addicted to lying with proclivities toward Islam. But the more one listens to his calculated misdirection pertaining to the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) the more convinced I become of his Islamic allegiance. He is an accomplished liar and defends Islam with a taqiyya tongue. But on second thought, perhaps both of these opinions are correct; for Islam is nothing less than Marxism with a “religious” edge.

     

    Marxism

     

    Marxism is the worldview inspired primarily by Karl Marx, based upon a revolutionary concept of societal change that has as its goal a Totalitarian Government. These “societal changes” are accomplished by violent revolution. Vladimir Lenin, who had a sterling Marxist pedigree, advised the Communists that they were to “resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge” to achieve their goals. For example, the communists define peace as “the elimination of all forms of opposition to socialism.” Lying and redefinition is communist tactic.

    Wherein does this differ in principle from Islam? Remove the prayer rituals, eating regulations and mosque worship and Islam looks exactly like Marxist communism. And the common people who feel the iron fist of Islamic brutality throughout the centuries probably have not discerned any difference between a dictatorship of a Chairman Mao and a Caliphate of Ali Khamenei who is officially the “Leader of the Revolution” in Iran.

     

    Islam

     

    Is Obama aware of this nature of Islam? Of course he is! The stated goal of The Muslim Brotherhood, according to official government documents, is a work, “in America … a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

    Public knowledge this. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna with the one purpose of establishing an Islamic state on a global scale. Obama is perfectly aware of the nature of Islam. He just hopes the American people remain in a state of ignorance as he practices the chief Muslim tactic of “taqiyya.”

     

    The Tactic of Taqiyya

     

    “Taqiyya” literally means “to remain faithful” or “to guard” but in practice and in effect it really means “dissimulation.” The Quran actually instructs Muslims to practice misdirection by words (3:28; 16:106). It allows a Muslim to conform outwardly to a non-Islamic government, while inwardly “remaining faithful” until the situation is more favorable from the Islamic perspective. After all, Muhammad himself said, in the spirit of Lenin, “War is deceit.”

    Warner Mackenzie points out that “taqiyya” is “employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralizing any criticism of Islam or Muslims.”

    It is also important to keep in mind that taqiyya means “Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam.” This is “sanctioned in the Quran and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful in his heart.”

     

    Obama’s Taqiyya

     

    Obama has furthered the agenda of Islam more than any preceding leader of the free world. When Obama extended official invitations to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership when he spoke in Cairo in 2009 he was the very first American president to invite the MB to the table. This practice has continued unabated during his presidency. The official White House guest list in February 2014 included Anas Altikriti, another MB official whom Obama warmly received in the Roosevelt Room.

    In 2011 Barack Obama hosted an ‘iftar’, the nightly dinner to break the Muslim fast during the month of Ramadan, at the White House. The invitation list included Mohamed Magid, the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), another organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Knowing how controversial the list would be with Magid’s name on it, Obama purposefully left his name off of the published guest list. (Daily Caller, Aug. 11, 2011). This is not ignorance on Obama’s part. It is dissimulation and misdirection.

     

    Obama’s purpose seems clear to those who do not refuse to see. Advance the cause of totalitarian Islam. His recent televised speech follows the same pattern. “ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents…” Taqiyya.

    Share
  • September18th

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Whatever defenses one may wish to give of the Obama Administration, one thing cannot be denied. Barack Obama has more swiftly shepherded America to the pits of the godless than his predecessors. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in yesterday’s Pentagon instruction to omit the words “So help me God” from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman so prefers.

    Casting the entire issue as one of rights, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James stated, “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen’s rights are protected.”

    The decision follows a request by the Air Force to the Department of Defense Counsel after an Airman at Creech AFB, Nevada struck out the words, “So help me God” on the official oath. The Airman’s unit was unable to process his paperwork due to the guidance in Air Force Instruction 36-2606 which prohibits any omissions.

    The Airman in question had secured the counsel of the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Legal Center after he had been informed that he could not reenlist in the Air Force while omitting the phrase “So help me God” from his contract. Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA responded to the change: “We are pleased that the U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed our client has a First Amendment right to omit the reference to a supreme being in his reenlistment oath.”

    Rights?

     

    Both the Secretary of the Air Force and the AHA attorney who threatened suit against the Air Force have cast this episode as one of “rights.” So also does Jason Torpy, President of the Association of Atheists and Freethinkers and board member of the American Humanist Association. “After fighting for our rights, nontheists now again have the status quo in the Air Force, a secular affirmation consistent with other branches of service and our Constitution.” What shall we say to these things?

    First, the entire issue is not a question of “rights.” It is a matter of whether or not America any longer believes that there is such a thing as “inalienable rights” with which we have been “endowed by our Creator” and which our government is interdicted from transgressing. It is a question of whether or not western civilization still “holds” anything such as that to be “self-evident.”

    Humanists whine that they have the “right” to be unbelievers in God. Do they indeed have the right to refuse to take an oath before God? Of course they do! Atheists have the perfect right to be nontheists—but at the same time, the nation of citizens also has a “right” to place less or more confidence in one’s integrity if that person is not going to recognize any higher standard than himself as a basis upon which to perform a duty. An atheist may wish to take the “oath” on himself or herself, but oneself is not a very high bar.

    For this reason many Courts in early America distrusted the testimony of atheists. By what standard higher than oneself will one pledge to “tell the truth?” Seeing the plethora of modern atheistic scholastic ivory-tower material that vehemently argues that there is no ultimate standard of right or wrong by which to assess conduct, it seems the founding era of Americans knew whereof they spoke.

    The Obama Administration says it wishes “latitude” for Air Force inductees to disbelieve in God. But don’t hold your breath for that same type of latitude to be extended to believers who have a distrust of those who declare there is no such thing as an ultimate standard of conduct and duty. No, if I do not believe the integrity of the Mikey Weinstein’s of the world I will be ransacked as some kind of a bigot. Latitude of belief is reserved only for humanists and atheists who wish to attack the foundations of America.

    Second, our culture is ignoring the nature of an oath. What is an oath? Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary defined: “A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.” By its very nature an oath invokes Deity.

    Webster was an influential founding father of America whose gifted labors helped ratify the Constitution. A lawyer who graduated from Yale, Webster fought in the Revolutionary War and became a member of the Massachusetts legislature. “In my view,” Webster wrote, “the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

    Because of the views set forward above he labored incessantly for the original Constitutional Convention. Showing that the basis of our entire Constitutional framework was in the Holy Scriptures, he added, “The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.”

    An oath by its very definition encompasses a theistic world view. It also incorporates a concept of limited government that men might enjoy the freedoms that were given to us by God and it invokes the notion that I recognize that my actions will one day be brought into account before the bar of God. One might exemplify faithfulness to a country or a military promise without believing in God, but the deleterious effect of godless Humanism soaking through society erodes over time any ultimate standard of conduct—for citizens or soldiers.

     

     

    Share
  • September17th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    In the last I laid before the reader the question of Ultimate Authority in religion—whether it resides in the Scriptures or in some church body such as the Roman Church. I asserted that the Roman Church actually wrests authority from the Holy Scriptures and sets itself above the Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4). In this the Roman Church is the “lawless one.”

    Before me are two recently published Catholic booklets which clearly demonstrate the truth of what I have above noted.  One of the booklets is entitled Catholic Answers to Fundamentalists’ Questions by Philip St. Romain and has upon it the “Imprimatur” of Edward J. O’Donnell, Vicar General Archdiocese of St. Louis (1984). A second pamphlet is Catholic Pocket Evangelist by Fr. Mario P. Romero with an “Imprimatur” stamped upon it by the same O’Donnell. An “imprimatur” means that it teaches official Catholic doctrine as approved by the machinery of the Roman Church. In other words, these are not just “somebody’s” statements about what that Church professes. Both of these booklets have been paper-clipped and highlighted to call our attention to specific pages. Let us see what we can learn. According to the Catholic Church:

    1. The Word of God (Bible) ALONE cannot serve as Sole Authority of Christian Belief and Practice. (Romero’s tract, p. 21). It is highly interesting that in order to support the idea that the Scriptures ALONE are insufficient many passages from the Bible are listed, e.g. Matt. 16:18,19; John 20:30; et. al. And the illustration that is used says that just as with our U.S. Constitution, “it cannot interpret itself, and thus, we need a Supreme Court to guide us in our understanding…” In other words, the argument is that we need the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to tell us what the Scriptures mean. What about this?
      1. Apparently the Catholic Church believes there are at least SOME passages that we can understand on our own without the authority of that Church—namely, the ones they listed that supposedly supports this idea! They think you can turn to those passages, read them, and come to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church—and all this without one particle of aid from the Catholic Church.
      2. Not one of those passages even mentions the Roman Catholic Church as being the authoritative Church. As a matter of fact, there is not a passage in the Bible that mentions it.
      3. Not one of the passages listed ever mentions Peter as Pope or that he ever had a successor.
      4. Regarding the U.S. Constitution, the Catholic Pocket Evangelist gets it wrong entirely. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788; but the Supreme Court was not created until 1789 and not organized until February 1790! Are we to believe that no one knew exactly what the Constitution meant or could not interpret it until two years after it was agreed upon by the States? Nonsense. As every state put it plainly, as well as was written in the Constitution itself, “All power is in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority.” The truth is, the Supreme Court was only to apply the ratified law to specific cases.
    2. According to the Catholic Church, “The Papacy attained its developed status in postbiblical times.” (Philip St. Romain, p. 18). Exactly. The entire doctrine of the papacy is NOT in the Bible itself, but was “developed” AFTER the days of the apostles. Even regarding Peter, who the Catholic Church wrongly assigns with being the first pope, “CAME TO BE CONSIDERED the first pope.” Precisely what I have written. The entire structure of the Roman Church is unbiblical, unscriptural, but was only an evolutionary development many years later. Not only that, but since the doctrine of the Papacy was a “development” of many years, how in the world did early Christians before this development ever read and understand the Scriptures? The same way we do today, without the “assistance” of the Roman Catholic Church.
    Share
This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro