Patriots4Liberty
  • Featured Content
  • August26th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    In one of Al Sharpton’s high moments of the Michael Brown funeral oration, he thundered, “This is not about you! This is about fairness! And America is going to have to come to terms when there’s something wrong that we have money to give military equipment to police forces, but we don’t have money for training, and money for public education, and money to train our children!” That may be good fodder for the Social Justice gospel which demands redistribution of goods to create a “better society” and a “better man,” but it dishonors the One True God of the Universe.

    Socialism is constructed upon two main pillars. One, the collective ownership of goods and properties; and Two, that human behavior is solely determined by what one owns or is able to “access” in a society. Improvement of society therefore is tied to material possessions and the “collective ownership” concept justifies the strong arm of government making this happen.

    But this is in reality “The Devil’s Gospel” of materialism. It causes man in essence to look outside of himself and to blame others (or society) for his problems and ignore personal sin. Materialists and socialists therefore love to harangue the “injustices” of the system. But the root cause, the heart of man out of which are determined the issues of life, is left unnoticed.

    This is like a drug addict who blames the drug dealer for his problem or blames the system that has not removed drugs from society. The missing ingredient in this diagnosis is the all-important one: Personal Responsibility or Personal Behavior. Our society seems to be going the way of all the earth—in a hand-basket—and the Al Sharpton’s of the world are pleased to dither in false diagnoses. But he is not alone. Even the National Council of Churches majors in the “devil’s diagnosis” of materialism.

    Consider these questions. If Al Sharpton is correct that criminal misconduct and massive unrest in society stems from too little money and opportunities; or results from “injustices” in the penal system about which he loves to wax bold—why did not the Christians of the first century take to the streets to riotously protest the “injustices” which had occurred in the trial of Christ? Where was the looting which “preachers” such as Sharpton are loathe to condemn among blacks? Where were the marches with Christians carrying signs and “demanding” justice! Where were the massive protests against Christians being persecuted, or being unjustly blamed by Nero for Rome being burnt? Sharpton’s message leads to different results because Sharpton’s gospel is not Jesus’ gospel.

     

    Government’s Fault

     

    The truth is, and everyone can see it: many blacks in America are ready to burn down American cities unless the police officer Darren Wilson is convicted. No trial necessary. What has brought us to this ungodly point? Answer: The Government. But not merely government generally, but specifically the false doctrine of socialism which has misguided most of our bureaucrats for nearly a century.

    Affirmative Action programs, which continue to dominate everything but sports, are purposefully constructed to create the racist climate. In the government schools, everyone knows that a minority staff member may not be fired unless those doing the firing are ready to go to court and spend beau-coups of bucks. Personal behavior of the employee has little to do with it.

    One state hospital employee told me that as early as 1985, when she was hiring employees, she had to justify in writing, through a lengthy process, why she did not hire blacks or women who had applied. The pressure was plainly to hire the minority rather than wade through red tape and possibly be charged with racism. Qualifications aside.

    State-funded universities and graduate programs may have “entrance requirements” including one’s GPA, but these are frequently waived or lowered when it comes to minority preferences. Even the military is affected by this. Commanders who discipline a minority or a woman will have to be prepared to give answer before superiors, which is rarely done with when the disciplined person is white.

    These types of policies actually empower racism or sexism. Why? Because true qualification is secondary to the primary consideration of race or sex. We are systematically training our collective mind to think in terms of race or sex. Exactly how Sharpton is reacting in the pulpit in St. Louis. Facts have little to do with what is now occurring in the Michael Brown case. Justice is assumed to be absent and Sharpton’s street-mobs demand Wilson’s conviction. If Sharpton had any spiritual backbone he would indict much of the black community for being out of agreement with God because of the gangsta-style sinful lives they pursue. But I suspect he would not be very popular with the crowds he wishes to stir.

    But affirmative action mentality has a worse effect than this. Affirmative Action Policies are constructed on the foundation of one major assumption: That if it were not for the policies mandating how many minorities will be employed Americans would act unfairly on the basis of racial prejudice. The law must be in place to shield minorities from unfair discrimination. This is the assumption.

    And what is the message here? America is a racist society with white privilege ruling. This is the lesson that the masses in Ferguson, Missouri show it believes. That a “preacher” like Sharpton has bought into it does not speak very well of his adherence to the gospel of Jesus Christ, the real and only source of healing. Easier it is to blame the “system” than to cause people to be introspective about their relation to God.

     

     

    Share
  • August25th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Elton Trueblood of Stanford University, observed in 1942: “Whatever be the present position of academic philosophers, there is little doubt that a naïve form of naturalism is the dominant metaphysics of our Western culture just now, so far as the rank and file of literate persons is concerned.” That this continues to be the case is without question. But what is most remarkable is that he describes naturalism as “fundamentally naïve.” Why is this?

    It is because most of its philosophical implications remain unexplored by its adherents. In other words, the Richard Dawkins’ of the world have never squarely considered the fact that evolution itself is only a philosophy at its root and its fruit they never seem to grasp.

     

    What Is Naturalism?

     

    Naturalism is the philosophy that repudiates that there exists or could even possibly exist any entities or events which lie beyond the scope of scientific investigation. Every element of reality can be weighed in a test tube or examined with microscopes and telescopes. To put it differently, all that exists in the universe are natural objects—matter; and motion—the movement of matter. As applied to man, Douglas Futuyma, author of a widely used evolutionary biology textbook for college students, wrote: “Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms—but this seems to be the message of evolution.” Evolution is the naturalistic philosophy holding sway today.

    If evolution is not really validated by science, but is grounded in naturalistic philosophy, why has it become so popular? Trueblood offers four reasons.

     

    Why Is It Popular?

     

    First, the success of the scientific method. Man has been able to change the face of the earth to remarkable degree in last 300 years. Machines have been produced that fly and the inner workings of strands of DNA in the cell have been explored. The obvious progress of science strikes awe in the eye of the beholder. This has caused the modern to blindly accept that all of reality can be explored by the scientific method. Or, as Trueblood puts it, “… the claim that naturalism is implicit in natural science, often assumed without argument, is far from self-evident and requires careful analysis.”

    Second, the distrust of authority. Authority as a means of discovering truth is in disrepute. Evolutionists rail against religious figures who presume to enter the discussion of origins. But the irony is that in practice it is as popular as ever. “The authority of some distinguished scientists is accepted unquestionably by millions who have no means of testing for themselves the scientific beliefs they ingenuously hold.” Peculiarly, the naturalistic mentality believes that way of authority is somehow bound up with a theistic interpretation of universe, but has nothing to do with a naturalistic explanation.

    Third, there is a wide acceptance of evolution as an explanatory principle of everything. It is important to note that evolution does not spring from science. Evolutionary theories are far older than modern science, even dating back to the age of Thales. Further, evolution is far more philosophic than scientific. “The notion that all life has been derived from a single unicellular organism is an interesting and useful concept, but it is purely speculative and lies in an area in which scientific demonstration is entirely out of the question. It may be a reasonable faith, but nothing more.”

    Fourth, the modern desire for simplification. A tendency of man is to inquire into origins and be satisfied that a complete explanation has been found. For example, we investigate the history of morals and we find, supposedly, that in the beginning morality was nothing but a set of taboos or fear of tribal chieftains. We conclude that all morality, even in its developed form, is really nothing but taboos and has no objective reality.

    Investigation into history of religions seems to say that religion arose out of primitive fears of the unknown. “Consequently the religion of civilized men is really nothing but superstitious fears. By the same argument science could be reduced to primitive magic.” For example, the word “pharmacology” originally dealt with the practice of magic. “Pharmakos” is the Greek word for “sorcerer.” Shall one conclude that the practice of pharmacology is nothing but modern sorcery? That would be a gross over-simplification, but it is precisely the “logic” of current schools of philosophy when examining religion.

    Naturalism shows no sign of abating as the dominant thought-form in our Western world. But this is not because it has been scientifically verified. It is merely modern naïve belief without foundations.

     

     

    Share
  • August19th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    A young woman commented this week regarding the unruliness and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri as follows: “Just another HUGE setback in social equality this week…in a country with so many ‘God-fearing’ people, hypocrisy, fear and social inequality still rule… Racism, particularly driven by social inequalities, is a primary detractor of peace.”

    The writer goes on to add, “I’m particularly concerned with far-reaching social inequality today that are typical expressions of group dominance and include, at the material level, denial of access to resources including employment, income and housing and at the immaterial level education, knowledge, information…so much seems to roll down from this.” (Emp. bl)

    This is the typical socialistic/communistic view of the world taught in our godless universities. All of society’s problems, including violence in Ferguson, stem from either too much, or too little ownership of property—“social inequality.” It is the entire economic system that is at fault. Some people have things, and even “access to resources”; and other people do not have material goods nor “access to resources.” Note also that “social inequality,” per this young woman, is the root cause that drives hostilities such as “racism.”

    In other words, a socialist’s diagnosis is that all problems in society, including racial tensions, violence and riots in Ferguson, are rooted in the fact that goods, services, and properties are unequally distributed in America. This makes us, since we claim to be “Christian America,” a nation of hypocrites.

    Based upon this socialistic notion, Karl Marx insisted in the communistic platform on the “abolition of private property.” The Oxford English Dictionary even defines communism as “A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labor organized for the common benefit of all members.”

    How then are Americans to remedy the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, and elsewhere, if the above theory is true? Only one answer remains. All goods and services must be “equally distributed” among the poor of not only America, but the world, until each person is on a “level playing field.” Equal goods and equal “access to services and goods.” Socialists believe if we change the “economic system” in America to a “state ownership” of goods the nature of man will be changed. And this requires the strong arm of government.

     

    What is Wrong with This View?

     

    The primary problem with this view of mankind is that it does not happen to be true. All of the wars in American history have cost citizens $7 TRILLION, but the so-called “War on Poverty,” begun by FDR and Lyndon Johnson, have cost us $20 TRILLION and still counting. We have been furiously re-distributing, yet, things seem to be getting worse. What is wrong?

    What is wrong is that we are ignoring God’s Word which teaches the reality of human nature. This socialistic view wrongly assumes that all evil is traceable to what a person does or does not own and implies that the nature of man is shaped by the economic system. But right behavior or wrong behavior, including violence, is not dependent upon how much one may own or not own or that “to which we have or do not have access.” Society’s problems are not traceable to the economic system itself, but lie in the HEART of man.

    “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). It is the heart that devises wickedness…” (6:18). “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). The Hebrew wording here shows, “As he [man] is all along in his heart, so is he in act!” Crime is not bred by lack of ownership of property or lack of access to services, but in the heart of man. Corruption begins there.

    Jesus declared, in opposition to the Pharisees, that it is “not what goes into the belly” which defiles a man, but “out of the heart comes forth evil thoughts [thoughts, opinions], murders, adulteries, fornications, theft [stealing], false witness [lying], and blasphemy [denial of God]” (Matt. 15:17-19). It is instructive that evil things which are spoken or committed originate in the heart of man, the seat of volition and emotion.

    In the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14ff) our Lord relayed a story regarding “talents,” which includes things as well as abilities to utilize them. What is striking is that they are not equally distributed by God Himself. In this parable one servant was given five talents, another two, another one—“to each according to his several ability…” The Master who distributes these is GOD. And there is not an equal distribution with Him.

    As usual, violence and mayhem bring out the worst in man, not only in Ferguson, Missouri, but especially in the views of human nature which misdiagnoses the cause of society’s problems. This, in turn, is because we refuse the reality as taught by God.

     

    Share
  • August14th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    The Bible presents Christianity as a “God-revealed religion.” It owes its origin to God alone. The sacred writings which bring the message of God, Paul asserts, were “revealed unto him by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:10) and Peter tells that the New Covenant material is more valuable to us than “eye-witness testimony” (2 Pet. 1:18,19) since “holy men of God speak as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

    Skeptics, on the other hand, inform us that Christianity had its beginnings in the culture of the Middle East and arose from polytheistic nature religions which preceded it. It itself is the product of evolution. Which is right?

    Dr. Augustus Neander, in his classic work The History of the Christian Religion and Church During the First Three Centuries, shows that from a purely reasoning and historical understanding, Christianity could not have arisen from polytheistic religions. Instead, it must have been revealed by God. Why? He offers the following.

    First, Christianity alone presents us with objective truth. “It was Christianity which first presented religion under the form of objective truth, as a system of doctrines perfectly independent of all individual conceptions of man’s imagination, and calculated to meet the moral and religious wants of man’s nature…” Jesus himself declared “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Man-made religions by habit do not do this. By contrast, all of the pagan religions of antiquity and of the modern era “consist of many elements of various kinds, which, either by the skill of the first promulgator, or in length of years, by the impress of national peculiarities, were molded together into one whole.”

    Consider the mythologies of old. They transmit “tales, half mythical, and half historical, by forms and statutes…mingled with poems which showed a powerful imaginative spirit.” In other words, not only can one trace the evolution of religious ideas among the ancients which took shape over many centuries, but the very core of their ideas were rooted in self-confessed myths and tales. But where can one show the genealogy of objective truth? It does not exist.

    Second, Christianity alone presents us with a high holy standard. The religions of man are “devoid of that holiness.” Instead, they weave together the customs and relations and characters of the political movements in which these ideas were born. Islam, which came later, as mere human fabrications do, completely reflects totalitarian savagery by the sword. Exactly is this what one would expect examining the culture in which it was born. So it is throughout history, religions fitted to each peoples.

    What a bold contrast is Christianity which declares that “we ourselves were at one time foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior towards man appeared, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit…we are justified by his grace” (Titus 3:5-7). The NT raises our standard of living and challenges us to come higher.

    Peter likewise admonishes, “…do not fashion yourselves according to your former lusts in the time of your disobedience, but like as he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living.” Only Christianity encourages and motivates mankind to quit wickedness while empowering him to escape it and rise above it. And hereby “floods of wickedness is checked, and savage manners softened, by means of the Gospel” (Origen, Contra Celsus, 1.64). What other religion does this?

    As Neander recognizes, “…a religion like the Christian, could never have sprung forth from any of the individual religious tendencies of that age, nor from any union of them…” (p. 10).

    Third, Christianity alone gives us the perfection and love of Deity come in the form of a man, Jesus Christ. It is true that divinities appeared throughout history in the tales of uninspired man. But their mythologies and fictions do never present deity as free and elevated above human nature and its sins, “but the divinity was lowered to the level of nature, and made subservient to it.”

    In this manner and through this principle humans have “deified the powers of nature” while Christianity’s light illuminates the fact of a God-man, Jesus Christ, tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. The word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, as only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

     

    Share
  • August12th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom” (Luke 6:38).

    There are only two methods by which money, your earnings from your personal labor, can be transferred from your pocket to mine. (1) Free will offering. You, of your own choice, freely and without compulsion, offer me some of your own money. This is GIVING. (2) Force. You, unwilling to freely give, are compelled or forced to hand your earnings to me. The first method is normally practiced by churches when passing contribution plates through a congregation of worshippers. You may donate, or you may wish not to donate. The second method occurs when someone at gunpoint demands your wallet.

    What about taxes? Legitimate taxes, as per these principles, are those monies which individuals pay for certain privileges you enjoy. Sales taxes, for instance. If you wish to purchase a boat, then you pay taxes for the privilege of driving an automobile on the furnished roads paved by these taxes. If you do not wish to pay those taxes, you may walk or ride a bike. Don’t purchase the boat.

    Based upon these biblical principles the founders of our nation crafted the system of taxes as a means by which you might enjoy things or privileges freely provided to ALL citizens. This is what “general welfare” means in the Constitution. From Article 1, section 8 we note that the people of the several states empowered the Congress to expend money ONLY for the enumerated purposes in this section, provided that it benefits the general welfare of the whole people. The TEST was: does it benefit all citizens?

    Alexander Hamilton explained, “The welfare of the community [of states] is the only legitimate end for which money can be raised from the community. Congress … cannot rightfully apply the money they raise to any purpose merely or purely local.” Is it “general” or “local” [applied to certain persons or groups] in nature? Archibald MacLaine of the Constitutional Convention put it this way, “Congress shall not lay a single tax when it is not to the advantage of the people at large.”

    This is not merely a lesson on the Constitution, but it is to show what that the Founders wanted to remain biblical in their orientation and in their giving.

    What is the point? I recently had a recent short mini-debate with a Presbyterian female preacher who believes that the illegal children that are coming across our border are our Christian obligation and compassionate giving. This means she thinks that the GOVERNMENT should take from Americans and redistribute to all the Mexican nationals and if we do not allow this, then we are uncompassionate. So the argument goes. This is the argument of SOCIAL JUSTICE.

    In truth, SOCIAL JUSTICE has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or real compassion. It is THEFT. Government stealing from some and giving to others. If Americans wish to give to these illegals, that is non of the government’s business. As noted at the outset, real compassionate giving is of individual obligation ONLY and has absolutely nothing to do with the arm of government taking from one and giving to another. This is also the basis of the Founding Fathers’ views. It is indeed sad that so many in the world—claiming to be religious leaders—have such a warped view that even the nature of “giving” is twisted into ungodly “social justice.”

    Share
  • August8th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    A common defensive dodge offered by Muslims when exposure is given to the plain ugly teaching of the Quran is that the “high Arabic,” in which the Quran is supposedly written, is “untranslatable.” It is argued that non-Muslims are not able to understand what the Quran actually says, even through English translations! But by this not only are non-Muslims barred from its teaching, but 80% of Muslims themselves, who cannot understand Arabic—let alone the “high Arabic” in which the Quran was supposedly composed, shut off from its teaching! This is one of the manufactured shields thrown up by Muslims to keep the teaching of the Quran from the light of day.

     

    The question then becomes, what is the value of possessing a “holy book” if one cannot access it? If a sincere searcher desired instruction, but was left with only what the imam—or priest—told him, we are back again in the dark ages. And this is precisely where Islam takes the world. Non-access to the teaching of the Quran by the common man is like having a computer but unable to access anything on it for lack of a password.

     

    The question again is before us: what value is there in having a “holy book” by which salvation is supposedly learned and yet we are not able to access it or understand it?

     

    Lawful Magic

     

    Islam answers with superstition, or what one writer called “lawful magic.” J. Carter Swaim explains. “There are religions in which it does not matter whether or not the worshipper understands the sacred books. In Islam there is a frank acceptance of a double standard in language. The common man cannot be expected to understand the holy writings. The fellahin who speak ‘low Arabic’ are not acquainted with the ‘high Arabic’ of the Koran. This does not matter, for it is believed that the hearer can somehow benefit simply by listening to the rhythmical chant of the words he does not understand. This produces upon the hearer an effect known as ‘lawful magic.’”

     

    In truth, Islam does not address the mind at all. Witness the forcible “conversions” occurring worldwide at this hour. What a difference is there with Christianity! Just as in the synagogue of Jesus’ day in which the law was read in Hebrew but translated into Aramaic in order to be understood, so the Bible, from the first century time of its composition until today, has been translated into receptor languages around the world.

     

    Whether in the Coptic, Syriac, Latin, or English languages, the Word of God gives light to the world (John 8:12). Christians ever are interested that its teaching might be made accessible to the student. Multitudes of modern translations of the Bible are all undertaken that the common man—even the fellah or peasant worker in Egypt and Arabia—might enjoy the light of God’s Word.

     

    In Acts 8, Philip, the inspired man of God, asked the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading from Isaiah 53, “Understandest what thou readest?” The missionary wanted to be sure that the sense of what he was reading was discerned. Christianity ever addresses the mind and thinking of man. In contrast, Islam seeks to engender superstitious fear.

    Share
  • August4th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    J.H. Merle D’Aubigne, in his famous multi-volume work on the Reformation Movement of the 16th century, observed that there are three kinds of religion. These are the Religion of God; The Religion of Man; and the Religion of the Priest. Let’s look at each of these.

     

     The Religion of God

     

    “Religion of God” is that which is directed or authorized by Almighty God. By “religion” is meant any specific system of belief, worship or conduct, normally involving a code of ethics and practice. Included in this is the idea of how one might acceptably approach God. The “religion of God” is directed by “divine revelation,” or the truth as God gave it. The goal of religion is the glory of God and the salvation of mankind. Jesus Christ alone can give life and light to the world (John 8:12; 14:6). No other person or system exists that that of Jesus Christ which enables men to draw close to God. For this reason the apostle Paul commands Christians to “Prove [test] all things and hold only to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). John likewise admonishes, “Try the spirits [teachers] whether they be of God; for there are many false prophets gone out into the world.” Not just any system, even if taught in the name of Christ, will do. Only that which is authorized by Almighty God.

     

    The Religion of Man

     

    The mind of man has invented a multitude of systems by which they wish to approach God. “God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions” (Ecc. 7:29). Not only does this passage show that man was created pure, unlike false doctrine which says that men are “born in sin,” but Solomon warns us that the tendency of man is to disregard the authority of Christ and approach God “however he thinks it ought to be done.” This type of religion, springing from the mind of man alone and without God’s authority, has no healing power whatsoever.

     

    For example, Nadab and Abihu, God-appointed priests under the Old Testament system, did not think it necessary to follow God’s instructions on how to approach God in worship (Leviticus 10:1,2). They offered that “which God had not commanded them.” How many churches today offer to God worship things which never have been commanded by God? The physical altars, the incenses, the sacrifices, the instrumental music, the images, and much more are things which God never commanded and which, as far as we know from the Bible, He does not accept.

     

    The Religion of the Priest

     

    By this designation D’Aubigne refers to the Roman Church which through the ages has appended multitudes of laws and regulations to the Bible. These regulations have benefitted the so-called “priests” of that church. One exclaimed, “By what audacity do the successors of the apostles enjoin, not what Christ has prescribed in his holy books, but what they themselves have devised!”

     

    The Roman Church pretends that the apostles have had successors, including the pope, who have bound laws and regulations which Jesus Christ never authorized. The entire system is one invented by the priest; for the glory of the priest; and where a hierarchal system is put into place.

     

    What a contrast when one turns to the NT! How beautiful is the pure unadulterated system of Jesus Christ, the only authorized religion of God!

     

    Share
  • July29th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    J. Evetts Haley (1901-1995), the famed Texas historian, once wrote: “Nothing could be more obvious than the hard cold fact that ‘the power to tax is the power to destroy’—not just wealth per se, but worse still the durable fiber of men, ancestral pride and inheritance, confidence, courage, character—everything! The destruction is far more sweeping than simply that of wealth and material values; the most terrible tributes are levied on spiritual and moral character.” This today is, practically speaking, in full ugly fruition. To stamp out any remaining vestige of freedom, the IRS now fires the final shot across the bow of liberty by warning Read More

    Share
  • 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. Read More

    Share
This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro