Patriots4Liberty
  • Featured Content
  • July10th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    A recent CNN article by Bruce Stokes declares that America is dangerously divided. “Divisions inside the Beltway actually reflect a deep ideological divide within the U.S. public that manifests itself not only in politics but in everyday life.” That this is an accurate reflection on the State of the Not-so-United-States no one will deny. But what underlying cause may be creating this divide, Stokes misses it entirely. As is usual with ALL liberals when confronted with problematic areas, they want to “redistribute the blame” to all parties.

     

    Stokes offers: “And this shift isn’t just about one party—Democrats have been moving to the left and Republicans have moved to the right.” Wrong. The entire spectrum has moved hard socialist left with the Democrats leading the way dragging multitudes of weakened Republicans behind them. As a matter of fact, Democrats in Congress have more than 60 members who are a part of the Communist Party with their front man, Barack Obama being a hardened Marxist. The entire Democratic Party has become so radicalized that there is an entire swath of people chirping lines from Chairman Mao and lionizing Fidel Castro.

     

    There is absolutely no evidence that Republicans have “moved right.” Consider Social Issues. Homosexuality and abortion top the list. Who has moved on these issues? Have conservatives come to the never-before-held conclusion that homosexuality is wrong? Is opposition to abortion a newfound position? Nonsense. From the time that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its “mental illness” list in 1973 to today where President Obama and his minions are sponsoring legislation to force you to participate it is the Socialist Left ONLY that has moved. To where? All the way to Sodom.

     

    The same can be said regarding abortion. From the staunchly held position that aborting babies is sinful to the current practice where conservatives are being forced to fund this killing via taxation, have conservatives “moved to the right?” Baloney. They are kicking and screaming as they are being dragged to the left.

     

    Environmental Issues

     

    From its inception in 1970 under Richard Nixon the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has steadily grown in unconstitutional power. As an arm of the executive branch the EPA today claims authority to unilaterally garnish wages of supposedly free American citizens who do not fall into regulatory line. To further the EPA cause citizen Al Gore preaches the gospel of the New Age. On this issue, who moved? Have conservatives become more terroristic to the environment or have socialists in Washington become more dictatorial? To ask this question is to answer it.

     

    Government Power

     

    Conservatives have always been solidly against encroaching government power. But from the days of the inception of the IRS through Lyndon Johnson’s 1954 ramping up of regulatory authority over churches to Lois Lerner’s lost emails, which way are we headed? Even today, the Republican platform includes a plank demanding “free speech” for clergy. This is to ask Big Brother for a break from its onerous laws. If one includes current events regarding the National Security Agency (NSA) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the monster of communistic government is at our doorstep. Is this to be explained, in Stokes’ words, as both sides, right and left, moving to their respective corners? Hardly.

     

    Government power is also growing exponentially through Judicial Activism. Oklahoma passes a voter approved law against incorporating Sharia law into its courts, but judges, who aren’t supposed to “make laws” have overturned it. A liberal activist Federal District Judge, Orlando Garcia, is single-handedly seeking to overturn the Texas Marriage Amendment (November 8, 2005). Is this judicial tyranny the result of conservatives becoming “more conservative?”

     

    Welfare State

     

    Plank by plank the welfare state has been constructed. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. Now it has escalated to such a degree under Obama that the welfare rolls boast the greatest number of Americans ever. Include in this scenario government-run healthcare, ObamaCare, which is another massive entitlement, and the apologists for it who actually chirp that they like socialized medicine, and one cannot help but be impressed with the fact that America is becoming a socialist nation. It is ridiculous to consider Stokes’ scenario that the “right” somehow is in the process of moving further right. Since when did FREEDOM become a radically right suggestion, Mr. Stokes?

     

    On immigration the conservative base has constantly been deceived by government. From the days of Ronald Reagan who himself quipped that the amnesty offered during his presidency on the promise of tightening the borders was an error of judgment because the Democrats had no intention of securing our border to the current Obama purposeful conspiracy to erase the southern border entirely—which side has moved? The right or the left?

     

    We are on the cusp of seeing the Marxist dream of chaos followed by totalitarianism and Stokes thinks that current problems in part are caused by Republicans becoming “more conservative” and moving to the right. I will go so far as to say that the lefties at CNN cannot put their finger on one single article of policy that shows a move to the right. Instead, we are in the throes of a Marxist Revolution. But like the mantra of socialists who like to spread your wealth around, they wish to spread the blame around.

    Share
  • July3rd

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Self-proclaimed “communist” Bill Ayers tells America during his recent Megyn Kelly interview on FOX News that his 1960’s Weather Underground terrorism and violence against the United States was done to protest the U.S. assistance of the of the South Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. Having been himself tutored through written material by the likes of Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh himself, Ayers opposed American resistance to the Butchers of Hanoi who would eventually bathe South Vietnam in blood.

     

    But as terrible fate would have it, Ayers has had much communist-sympathizing help from within the halls of the United States Government itself—the very one he is bent on destroying. Because while Americans were playing from the Roaring Twenties through the Fifties, communists and Fellow Travelers infiltrated the offices of our own government, the outcome of which was to free the communist who started the Weather Underground terrorist group. This awful twist would inspire Ayers to quip that he was “Guilty as Sin, but Free as a Bird.”

     

    Communist Front Organization

     

    Of the hundreds of communist front groups established in the United States, whose conspiratorial goals were to destroy the free society of America and re-make it into another socialist nightmare, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) was one of the foremost. It was established in 1936 by a caucus of the Communist Party, U.S.A. (CPUSA). Assistance was rendered by the International Labor Defense, an American agency of the Comintern (Communist International).

     

    The NLG was an affiliate of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), an international Communist front organization operated by the Comintern of the Soviet Union. At the request of the House Intelligence Agency the Central Intelligence Agency prepared a 1978 study regarding the NLG.

     

    Said the report; the NLG “has been one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party … In the 31 years of the IADL’s existence, it has so consistently demonstrated its support of Moscow’s foreign policy objectives and is so tied in with other front organizations and the Communist press that it is difficult for it to pretend that its judgments are fair or relevant to basic legal tenants.”

     

    This assessment agrees with the House Committee on Un-American Activities report issued in 1950. The National Lawyers Guild was described as the “Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party.” Further, “In order to attract non-Communists to serve as a cover for its actual purpose as an appendage to the Communist Party, the National Lawyers Guild poses benevolently as a ‘professional organization which shall function as an effective social force in the service of the people…’”

     

    Through the 1960’s the ranks of the NLG was filled by New Leftists who began looking to Havana or Hanoi for leadership instead of Moscow. Showing its true colors, the NLG supported the Palestinian Liberation Organization and one of its subcommittees on Vietnam demanded that the U.S. pay “reparations” to the Hanoi government and urged recognition of the Communist government set up in Cambodia after its conquest by the NVA.

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union the NLG continued to embrace communistic ideology. Guild member Chip Berlet wrote in 1999:

    “The cacophony at some [Guild] meetings makes Star Wars seem like a minimalist film. I have chaired committee meetings with debates featuring cadres from Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, and Maoist groups, along with Marxists, anarchists, libertarians, and progressive independents-interacting with a preponderance of reluctant Democrats-all intertwined with multiple alternate identities as lawyers, legal workers, labor organizers, tribal sovereignty activists, civil liberties and civil rights advocates, environmentalists, feminists, gay men and lesbians, and people of color.”

     

    Levi Guidelines

     

    One of the staffers of the NLG was Bernadine Dohrn, currently wife of Bill Ayers. But another figure of the NLG was the man who later was to become the Attorney General of the United States under Gerald Ford, Edward Levi. The Guild never achieved the revolution as envisaged by its founders, but through Levi, it did obtain a major victory in that Levi effectively hamstrung official investigations of subversive groups in America. This was accomplished through the “Levi Guidelines,” a hamstringing of the manner in which American security might investigate anti-American organizations.

    Edward Levi first issued his “Guidelines” in 1976. They became effective on April 6 of that year. Levi himself states that “the Guidelines proceed from the proposition that Government monitoring of individuals or groups because they hold unpopular or controversial political views is intolerable in our society.” This disingenuous thrust was directed at the FBI’s domestic anti-communistic activities which had fingered the NLG itself, the group that had spawned Edward Levi. Subversive and treasonous, plotting the violent overthrow of America through revolution is here softly characterized by Levi as merely “unpopular or controversial political views.”

    Like President Obama, himself a communist-sympathizer, would later do on a different front, these Guidelines effectively gutted investigation into domestic terrorism. Conspiracies of revolution and destruction of America itself would now be treated merely as a routine matter of law enforcement. The Guidelines placed specific limits on the techniques the FBI could use in domestic security investigations. Specifically, the Guidelines “provided that the FBI could commence a full domestic security investigation only on the basis of ‘specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that an individual or group is or may be engaged in activities which involve the use of force or violence.’” In other words, the FBI could only be practically engaged after a bomb went off.

    Mark Felt, one of the assistant FBI directors who had been investigating violence-mongering enemies of the country like Bill Ayers was now himself held on charges of “conspiring to injure and oppress citizens of the United States.” These citizens were members of the Weather Underground, whom Felt had been actively pursuing. Law enforcement was now accused of “conspiring”—that charge that causes the Left to scoff out loud—and Felt himself was found guilty of authorizing 13 “surreptitious entries of suspected Weather Underground hideouts.”

    Felt retired in 1973. He stated that the Levi Guidelines “for all practical purposes put the FBI out of the Domestic Security Business.”

    A later FBI report provided by FBI Director William Webster, who served from 1978 to 1987, shows the impact of the new Guidelines. Observed Webster: “… the FBI’s domestic security investigations had declined from 21,414 in July 1973 to 4,868 in March 1976.” He stated publicly on May 3, 1978 that the Bureau was “practically out of the domestic security field.”

    In protecting the Weather Underground Levi had served his purpose—almost. Over 140 agents were brought to trial under his 1976 Guidelines, every one of which was prosecuted for actions taken during 1972-1973, when evidence against Ayers and Dohrn had been amassed. The Department of Justice, in a clear violation of the Constitution’s ex-post facto laws which count regulations as “retroactive,” had won the war against what had been begun by the communistic NLG.

    But there was one more victory Levi needed to win. It would come in 1980. Ayers and Dohrn, his old comrades, surrendered to federal authorities in 1980. To the shock of the American people, all charges against them were dropped because of “improper surveillance.” Levi’s “Guidelines” had provided the “legal bulwark” that sheltered Ayers and Dohrn. This prompted Ayers to remark that he was “Guilty as Sin, but Free as a Bird.” Edward Levi, the AG of the United States, had gained him a lawless victory. This in turn would help set the stage for Ayers’ assistance in grooming another comrade for president—Barack Obama.

     

    Share
  • July1st

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Christianity differs from the “Eastern Religions”—Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, Hinduism—in a number of vital areas. At root level, one of the most important variances is that Christianity is grounded in historical fact while the religions of the East are built upon the sands of fruitless mysticism and fable. Another stark distinction is that Christianity raises men above what nature makes him. Eastern religions have no moral power to inspire upward change. These two differences are discussed below.

     

    J.H. Merle D’Aubigne, in his classic work History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, vol. 1, offers his settled scholarly opinion on the veracity of Christianity. Consider first that Christianity is founded upon fact.

     

    “The evils which thus afflicted Christendom—superstition, unbelief, ignorance, vain speculations, and corruption of morals—the natural fruits of the heart of man, were not new upon the earth. Often had they appeared in the history of the nations. They had invaded, especially in the East, the different religious systems that had seen their day of glory. Those enervated systems had sunk under these evils, had fallen under their attack, and not one of them had ever risen again.

     

    “Was Christianity now to undergo the same fate? Would it be lost like these old national religions? Would the blow that had caused their death be sufficient to deprive it of life? Could nothing save it? Will these hostile powers that overwhelm it, and which have already overthrown so many various systems of worship, be able to seat themselves without resistance on the ruins of the church of Jesus Christ?

     

    “No; there is in Christianity what none of these national systems possessed. It does not, like them, present certain general ideas mingled with tradition and fable, destined to fall sooner or later under the assault of reason: it contains a pure and undefiled truth, founded on facts capable of bearing the examination of every upright and enlightened mind.”

     

    Unlike the Eastern religions, Christianity is founded upon historical fact open to investigation. Another proof of the truthfulness of the religion of Christ is that its pure spring continually lifts man up from what he was before. In the words of D’Aubigne:

     

    “Christianity does not propose merely to excite in man certain vague religious feelings, whose charm once lost can never be recovered: its object is to satisfy, and it does really satisfy all the religious wants of human nature, whatever may be the degree of development which it has attained. It is not the work of man, whose labors pass away and are forgotten: it is the work of God, who upholds what he has created; and it has the promise of its divine Head as the pledge of its duration.

     

    “It is impossible for human nature ever to rise superior to Christianity. And if for a time man thought he could do without it, it soon appeared to him with fresh youth and a new life, as the only remedy for souls.”

    Share
  • June11th

     

    David Reed, Ph.D.

     

    A list of forty-five goals for the Socialist takeover of America was posted into the Congressional Record in 1963. The specific goals that boldly impinge upon our rights to educate our children and to erase their God-given privileges are enumerated below. See especially goal 17.

     

    15. Capture one or both political parties

    17. Control the schools nationwide. Use them as transmission belts for socialist and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line into text books.

    20. Control the press

    27. Infiltrate the churches

    28. Eliminate prayer in schools (Separation of church and state)

    29. Discredit the American Constitution

    40. Discredit the family

    41. Remove all children from beneath their parents’ influence.

     

    Unconstitutional Trail

     

    President Jimmy Carter’s administration inaugurated the unconstitutional Department of Education in 1990, violating the clear wording of the 10th Amendment which orders that, The powers not delegated to the Unites States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. Immediately following Department of Education power grab by the federal government the above socialistic targets began to be implemented and the deleterious results were not far behind.

     

    Before 1990, the graduation rate was about 80%; today it is about 77%. In the pre-1990 years reading and math comprehension was at least 10th grade level and the IQ of high school graduates was 98 while the general population was 88. Now it is 90 and 88.

     

    Only about 25% of current college students graduate while only 25% of high school graduates even attend college, perhaps because 60% of them only read at an eighth-grade level, while math scores are even lower with most unable to perform simple algebra without electronic aides.

     

    We can expect our children’s educational prowess to deteriorate even further since the federal government has taken control of 46 of the 50 states’ education. Besides national defense, where does the government do better than private enterprise?

     

    NCLB

     

    The reader might remember the project, “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). It passed in 2002 overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. The program required states to adopt curriculum standards and to test students annually to gauge progress. In order not to lose federal funds, states adopted or revised their standards, which up to that time, were more than adequate to insure that graduates were ready for higher education. At that point, they began testing every student, every year in every grade.

     

    By the end of the first decade of NCLB more than one-half of the schools in the nation were on the lists of failing schools. Many others were not far behind. At this point, the US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, began granting conditional waivers from NCLB provided the schools made certain revisions. These weakened revisions became the starting point for the federal “Race to the Top” (RTTT) program, which turned federal educational funds into competitive grants. Never mind that the entire program was already a failure.

     

    Conscious that federal law prohibits the federal government from creating national standards and tests, a new government program has been designed to deceive. Government officials call it a state program. But, like most liberal legislation, this is mislabeled. In truth, no state had anything to do with the inception and the writing of Common Core. It was inspired and crafted by an elite, national cartel consisting mainly of members of a progressive group called Achieve, which tried to give their standards some legitimacy by joining hands with the National Governors Association and with the Chief Council of State School Officers, who now hold the trademark and copyright to Common Core. These organizations are Washington-based trade and lobbying groups, not governmental organizations.

     

    Who Writes the Tests?

     

    Two consortiums were paid $360 million by the federal government to write the national tests. These were headed by two extremely progressive (communistic) individuals.

     

    Sir Michael Barber, a Brit, not an American, believes that children are global citizens who should not hold allegiance to any sovereign nation. He works directly for The Pearson Foundation, the main publisher for Common Core curriculum, e-books and assessments. The Pearson Foundation will profit by $15.00 to $20.00 per child in our schools. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided over $60 million to Common Core which made it all possible.

     

    The second author, whom most of us in Texas will recognize as a major contributor to CSCOPE, was Linda Darling Hammond. Ms Hammond is a Marxist education professor at Stanford University. She is a long time friend of Bill Ayers, leader of the 1960’s communistic terrorist group Weather Underground. Ayers is now a professor of education and a very good friend of our president, Barack Obama.

     

    As one might expect from Marxists, Common Core incorporates extremely invasive data collection on all students into its “national standards.” There are over 400 data points including parent’s political views, religious views and income. Every action of a child and his/her family is monitored by being logged into a government data-base.

     

    Common Core State Standards Initiative, CCSS, is a deceptive Trojan horse. The Texas governor, Rick Perry, along with the governors of Alaska, Nebraska and Virginia were wise enough to refuse the federal dollars offered in exchange for the takeover of state and local educational standards. Several states are now actively attempting to rid themselves of Common Core. Oklahoma was the latest to officially end it.

     

     

    The Bottom Line, Our Children

     

    Our children are in dire peril with a Common Core education.  Its standards are much lower than what we have had in the past. Our elected Texas State Board of Education has done a remarkable job educating our children. There is a world of difference in the Texas Curriculum Standards, TEKS, and the standards (or lack of them) in Common Core. Common Core represents a completely different philosophy of education. We must remain vigilant and keep an eye on the Education Service Centers of Texas which introduced us to CSCOPE and ensure that they do not do anything so rash as attempting to bring Common Core to Texas.

     

    Share
  • May29th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    “Moral relativism is sin in a toga. It’s selfishness and hedonism and rebellion dressed up in philosophers’ robes. Better to rule my own life than to have to do what anyone else tells me to do. I am master and creator and lord.” So stated Ryan Dobson in Be Intolerant (quoted by Dr. Sandra Clifton in New Age Lies Exposed, 63). In other words, relativism recognizes no absolutes, just “relative truths” applicable to the situation at hand. No sovereign God or absolute truth. Nothing right, and certainly nothing absolutely wrong.

     

    The reality of this worldview, championed by New Age, is that in an effort to excuse one’s own sin, relativism “can spin people around…It caused them to lose sight of the sin and the truth of what is right and what is wrong” (Clifton). Dobson’s point is that the entire New Age mentality, promoted as a religion, can in many ways be summed up as nothing more than relativism dressed in a toga. People seeking to justify their own wrong-doing. Let’s explore it.
    Read More

    Share
  • May19th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    New Age spiritualists maintain that there is no ultimate reality, that each person creates his or her own reality. This is the case because they believe that they can select whatever reality they choose. Each individual selects what is real according to their own whim. Sandra Clifton, one-time New Age guru later converted to Christ, calls this “Amusement-Park” thinking. “Self” is at the center of the universe therefore one chooses whatever “ride” one wishes.

     

    This “every man does that which is right in his own eyes” mentality is growing in popularity, especially on college campuses, as America is jettisoning the belief in Christianity. But it is an incorrect explanation of life itself. As a matter of fact, it is the worst type of deception. Jeremiah, the Old Testament prophet, observed that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt” (17:9). But such is the world of “reality” according to many in academia today.

     

    When Columbus was earnestly making an effort to bless the human race by discovering the American Continent, he was bitterly opposed by the “scholar” of the university who decided to “put an end to such non-sense.” Spanish sages called a mass meeting and the Solomon’s of academia appeared on the platform to expose Columbus as a fool.
    Read More

    Share
  • May14th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Dr. Sandra Clifton was at one time a New Age psychic with her own TV show. She knows the New Age Movement inside and out. She was later converted to Christ and wrote a book about the falsehoods of New Age, New Age Lies Exposed: How to Stand Firm in God’s Truth.

     

    One of her passages is this: “It is as if the New Age spirituality teachers have taken Philippians 4:13 and have lived by half o it—‘I can do all things,’ instead of living by the rest of the verse to follow: ‘…through Christ who strengthens me.’ New Age humanism truly takes the power away from the sovereign God and places it in the hands of humankind.

     

    “When I taught New Age ‘power’ classes, I saw myself as a woman on a mission—to empower ‘the higher self’ of each of my students, so that he or she could become their own creator. I was practicing what I now call New Age humanism. I was stripping God of His position of sovereignty and handing it over to my students. I later repented heartily of this disgusting and false practice when I came to Jesus.

     

    “New Age humanism can get very confusing because it sounds very spiritual. Read More

    Share
  • May13th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Communism has always held that parents have no right to “maim their children” morally by bringing them up with “religious prejudices,” the opposite of the true scientific instruction taught in the government schoolhouse. It looks as if Obama has brought us there overnight.

    Michael Sam, the first openly homosexual player to be drafted into the National Football League, was telephoned by president Obama with congratulations. The president is helping set an anti-Christian culture, which can be easily be discerned by comparing Sam’s treatment with the brazen ridicule society heaped upon Tim Tebow for his Christian faith. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg.

    After Michael Sam was drafted this week, Don Jones of the Miami Dolphins tweeted negative comments such as “OMG” and “Horrible.” These were later taken down and he was required to publicly apologize for these “inappropriate comments.”

    But in an openly hostile anti-Christian country these tokens of obeisance are not sufficient. Expressions of such opinions are off-limits in ObamaLand. Don Jones and football fans are way behind the times. Dolphin coach Joe Philbin publicly assured the nation that “we met with Don Jones” and informed him of the “negative impact these comments had on such an important weekend for the NFL.”

    Don Jones will be admitted into re-education camps before he will be allowed to play ball. He has been “excused from the program” until he completes brain rehabilitation on correct thoughts. Coach Philbin offered even more re-assurance to our brainwashed collapsing nation. “We met with Don today about respect and discrimination and judgment. These comments are not consistent with the values and standards of our program.” No accusation before the bar of justice. No crime committed. But confinement from society just the same.

    This reality, unfolding right now before America, sounds as a page torn out of a communist manual from the old Soviet Union where re-education camps were common practice. No science fiction here. If it is all about “respect” and “judgment” what is next? Forced indoctrination camps for parents who teach their children that homosexuality is wrong? Internment for preachers who publish sermons condemning homosexuality? Will Christians who quote biblical condemnation of homosexuality be assigned to the Ministry of Public Security as in Communist China?

    If Don Jones had tweeted “God gives up a society where ‘men burn in their lust one for another’—Romans 1”—would he not have received the same re-education? What if he had tweeted simply “Homosexuality is SIN?” Shall we burn the Bibles next?

    No wonder Obama wants a nationalized education system known as Common Core. This also is right out of the playbook of communism.

    What the NFL needs is not more men who are able to muscle their way through a weight-room but real men who have enough backbone to stand up for truth and right-thinking. It might be easy for me to write, but I would not, if I were Don Jones, be subjected to indoctrination camps in order to play ball.

    And what our country desperately needs is to replace the occupant of the White House with a man who values true morality and quits celebrating our descent into Sodom.

    Share
  • May11th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Jay Gary, author of the 1994 book The Star of 2000, predicted that the year 2000 A.D. was a “huge magnet hung in time” – “the end of history and the beginning of a global civilization of peace and prosperity.” This was also the year marked by New Agers as the beginning of the Age of Aquarius and the end of the Age of Pisces, or the Christian Age.

     

    “The Christian interlude, called in astrological circles ‘The Age of Pisces’ (the Fish, the historic symbol of the Christian faith), fueled by masculine, yang energy [opposite of the ‘yin’ in the ‘yin yang’ bl] is now at an end. It is superseded by the feminine yin energy in the Age of Aquarius.” [1]

     

    The Age of Aquarius, which ushers in what New Agers call “the Cosmic Christ” will supposedly witness the unification of all religions. “Christ” will come as each person reaches “universal consciousness” of the “divine presence within himself and realizes his potential for personal godhood.”

     

    New Ageism teaches, in keeping with ancient paganism, that all material reality is evil. Salvation, therefore, is achieved by freeing the spirit from its imprisonment in matter. Espousers of this theory have concocted many elaborate explanations as to how this is done. Not only so, but the one transcendent God of the Universe, described in the Bible, is removed by this paganistic program. Instead, there are many gods and goddesses. The goal of humans is to find those divine sparks within.

     

    This brings us to the first cardinal rule of New Age: Do not claim that your God or belief is exclusive. [2] Tolerate all religious beliefs—except those who believe that theirs is the only way of salvation—such as Christians believe. As Texe Marrs writes, “as long as you accept that all is one and that your religion is no better than the next person’s, then you qualify to be a New Ager.” “Since Christianity stands alone and is distinct from all other faiths, the clarion call of the New Age cults … is for mankind to rid itself of distinctions and separativeness and come together as one spiritual entity. Separate, exclusive religions are prohibited; a unified New World Religion is the goal.” God is an impersonal energy force and may be referred to as “he” or “she.” Even Mother Earth can be worshipped as God. Os Guinness correctly argued that this Eastern tolerance, which has been widely accepted in today’s culture, is actually the “kiss of death.” [3]

     

    The second rule of all New Age cults is this: God Himself is what or whom you personally wish him (or her) to be. Believe in any God, except the one God of the Bible. This includes the New Age denial of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Buddha supposedly taught inner illumination and is just as much in favor in the Age of Aquarius as Jesus Christ. Jesus was just another “wise teacher”—but certainly not Deity in the flesh. The real goal of New Age is to extinguish biblical Christianity. Age of Aquarius.

     

    [1] Peter Jones, The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back, 13.

    [2] Texe Marrs, New Age Cults and Religions, 19.

    [3] Os Guinness, The Dust of Death, 228-29.

    Share
  • May1st

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    With the range wars in the west heating up and patriots being called to the front lines to defend property rights in Nevada and Texas, ill-informed political pundits are taking to the internet to criticize those who are defying our national government.

    For example, when Judge Napolitano rightly remarked on FOX News that “The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land (in the Western states),” Politifact.com rated this statement “Pants on Fire” for error.

    Then there is Media Matters which supposes the entire resistance to government ownership of land is hypocrisy on the right. “After Slamming Obama as ‘Lawless,’ Right-Wing Critics Cheer Lawless Rancher Waging ‘War’ on Government” they headlined. “Darkening counsel” is easy when one begins with premises in the darkness of error. Let’s see about it.

     

    Basics

     

    First, the history and text of the Constitution reveals the simple fact that the Founders wanted a small, weak federal government. They permitted only 10 square miles for the nation’s capital. In Federalist #45 James Madison stated that the “powers given to the federal government are few and defined…those left to the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” The entire theme of the Constitution is to protect people from the concentration of power.

    Next, the only manner in which the Constitution authorizes land ownership by the federal government is by purchase and that with the CONSENT of the state legislatures. Politicfact.com therefore, entirely misses the point when they aver that the federal government has power to own and to control land.

    Even quoting the Congressional Research Service in 2007 in which it is insisted that the “Property Clause gives Congress authority over federal property generally … without limitation” the issue has never been whether the federal government is authorized to own property. The issue IS: How is the federal government to ACQUIRE that property? A related point is: For what reasons does the federal government own property?

    Wikipedia understands the issue when they write that when it came to the western states joining the Union “Congress RADICALLY digressed” from the Constitution by eliminating the sale of lands and retaining ownership of vast stretches of the western states. Absolutely unconstitutional.

    Another note needs be made regarding Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (Property Clause) of the Constitution. “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” Much is made of the language here but a perusal of the article itself relates to how new states would come into the union. As Thomas James Norton, Constitutional scholar of yesteryear put it, the federal government would own the expenses of territorial governments until such time as the states set up their own governments. Nothing here about owning 75% of the entire west.

     

    There are Tories About

     

    Those colonists who did not wish for independence during the Revolutionary War were known by the British political nickname “Tories.” Tories did not care that King George III violated his own British laws pertaining to the colonies. Simply submit. By systematically refusing the colonists enjoyment of their God-given rights as freeborn Englishmen and “erecting a multitude of new offices,” the king sent to America “swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out our substance.”

    The English king “enlarged the boundaries” of his empire and “imposed taxes on” the colonists “without our consent;” he introduced “absolute rule into the colonies.” When the colonists objected to these and a multitude of other lawless acts by the king, England classified them as lawbreakers and occupied America with a large red-coated police force. But right-thinkers know who was in the wrong.

    Eric Boehlert of Mediamatters.org is a direct descendent of King George III and his Tory minions. Many ranchers today do indeed slam Obama as “lawless”—and that with accuracy. But what Boerhlert fails to see is that standing for the freedoms that God gave us, including property rights, while opposing this tyrannical government that has broken the bars of its own Constitutional cage is not itself lawless behavior. It is asserting what God has granted and the Constitution supposedly guaranteed all the while. FREEDOM.

     

    Share
This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro