Preserving the City on a Hill

5 05 2021

I recently began reading “None Dare Call it Treason”, by John Stormer.

I am finding jewels and nuggets on every page. While the author specifically targets Communism, the modern euphemisms ‘Democratic Socialism’ (DS) and ‘Progressivism’ have served the propagators well in convincing a preconditioned populous into acceptance of Marxist philosophy.

Karl Marx

One such ‘nugget’ this morning reads, “Marx was a self proclaimed scientist. His ‘scientific’ theories explained the entire history of man and his future…Being ‘scientists’, communists [i.e. DS/Progressives] have certain basic ‘scientific’ laws which underlie their beliefs and teaching. They include: ‘There is no God. When communists [DS/progressives] deny God, they simultaneously deny every virtue and every value which originates with God. There are no moral absolutes, no right and wrong, the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are invalid.’”

[I nearly laugh out loud every time a Marxist uses quotes from Jesus of Nazareth to validate government redistributing material goods.]

“…Marx taught that man was entirely an evolutionary animal, without significant individual value or eternal life….Man is an economically determined animal. Qualities of human intelligence, personality, emotional and religious life merely reflect man’s economic environment. The evil a man does is just a reflection of his environment.”

Marx’s ‘dialectical materialism’ philosophy is based in the idea that conflict is the engine of change and if the “material needs of man are satisfied, then there will be no conflict resulting from capitalistic evils of greed, profit taking, avarice, and hate, which would lead to the lack of need for laws, or the need for a police force…Man’s nature would be magically transformed. Each would work according to his ability. Each would desire to receive only according to his needs.”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is saul_alinsky.jpg
Alinsky

That “conflict” theory shows up in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, when he adjures the “Organizer” that, “Nothing is sacred…He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting. He stirs unrest.” (p. 73) “In the beginning the organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems.” (p.119) “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.” (Barack Obama worked in Chicago as a Community Organizer before he ran for the Illinois State House. He also taught Mr. Alinsky’s methods as a Professor.) Alinsky goes on, that when society calls the Organizer “an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in a word, your function–to agitate to the point of conflict.” (p. 116-117)

Any of this sounding familiar yet?

“Communism is commonly believed to rise out of poverty.” Yet the movement is never spawned in the fields or the sweatshops, but in the elite halls of Academia. The historical push for Communism has come from states and cities with the highest per capita income, not the poorest. The poor are always used as pawns by the elites to accomplish their objectives.

“Communism promises Utopia. It has delivered mass starvation, poverty, and police state terror to its own people and promoted world wide strife and hatred by putting race against race, class against class, and religion against religion. Treason, terror, torture, and Moscow [Beijing] directed wars of ‘national liberation’ spread communist ‘brotherhood, peace, and social justice’ around the world.”

Vladimir Lenin, the self proclaimed Democratic Socialist, understood that in order to achieve the communist Utopia of Karl Marx, weapons must be used to control the people, and that opposition to the movement must be eliminated.

History

It has been rightfully said that those who fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it.

History is the most important subject that can be taught to young people. It is so important that dictators and revolutionaries for centuries have edited it to suit their own designs. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, just name a few, all knew that education/indoctrination of youth is how a society is changed long term, and how power is assured for future generations.

Even Michelle Obama said, “Barack knows we have to change our history, our traditions…to move into a better place…and he is the man to do it”.

But where does this “fertile ground”, this “golden opportunity” come from that allows a false narrative to convince a society that it is fundamentally corrupt and desperately wicked? That there is no hope for reform and must be radically transformed, even as Barack said, “fundamentally transformed”.

It does not begin when radical revolutionary Marxists tweet a hashtag and found an organization to take to the streets in protest, and rioting because of a cop shooting a young man who was trying to take his weapon. It doesn’t begin with a political party adopting revolutionary policies.

No, the process that leads to rewriting and replacing one historical narrative with another happens when a society falls for an Evolutionary theology which tells them they are better than their ancestors. Darwinism.

Interesting Facts About Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin

And speaking of Charley, how many “Woke” “Social Justice Warriors” out there today know that evolutionary theory is fundamentally racist? That Evolutionary thought actually sought to justify Slavery using Darwin and Marx’s “Science”? Actually, they wouldn’t even have to read his most infamous work; just the full title:

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Cheapen human existence and remove the Creator from the equation and teach kids they are equal to animals…they may just start acting like it.

The spiritual dearth resulting from two generations of revisionist history, secular humanism, and relativism has left America adrift in a stormy sea of pluralism and confusion, while being pursued by pirates, with no lighthouse to provide a bearing and no wind of common purpose in her sails. Foreign philosophies and ideologies have ripped the rudder off and unchained the anchor. God has been replaced by a godless government and a new religious “Cult of Woke”, while a politically correct media is playing the part of a “false prophet”.  The ship has no captain and the crew is devouring the remaining provender.  The passengers have been sleeping below decks and rats are infesting the ship with disease.

American Dream

A good friend of mine recently included a point in a speech that “The American Dream is still valid.” In America you don’t have to let your environment define you. That has been the overarching draw of America to the rest of the world; the uniquely “American” ideal, for the last 250 years. A place where the individual, the minority, is valued and preserved so that the “collective” may succeed. That’s the difference; that’s why people come here from around the world. The Marxist ideal places the Collective as the priority, and the individual’s duty is to the Collective.

“City on a Hill”

While President Ronald Reagan is credited often for that phrase, he was quoting John Winthrop from a sermon in 1630: “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.”

If America is lost, the entire world loses. In the words of Lincoln, America is still “the last best hope for Earth”. Today, the only hope for her survival is her people turn to the only source of hope; Faith in the God of our Fathers.

I have said before:

“When the Land behind the Great Statue looks like the rest of the world, to where shall those huddled masses flee?”

Our responsibility as Americans to the rest of the world is not to facilitate their transformation. It is but to preserve a Haven of Liberty to where they may find refuge and prosper themselves, as Americans, one nation, under God.





The Cult of Collectivism

11 03 2021

There is an ideology that has been around in America for a long time now, but has never had the momentum and support from our institutions that it currently enjoys. That ideology is collectivism. It has existed in varying degrees

Karl Marx

around the world in political movements like socialism, communism, and fascism. In its mild form it opposes capitalism, seeks to redistribute wealth, limit private property ownership, all through government regulation. (“Social Justice” is another term that is frequently used by collectivists.) This is “social democracy”. We are becoming very close to that now, if not already there.

Collectivism always puts the group needs before the needs/rights of the individual. The ultimate in a secular collectivist society is Communism, where the government, in the name of “the People”, owns or controls everything from food production to education. It manages information flow through news media, the arts, and academia. The duty of each citizen is to the state. The natural result of this philosophy is the weak perish, and the middle class disappears. The ultimate goal of total equality is nearly met, and for all the rhetoric of “social justice”, well…everyone lives in poverty except the ruling elite. After all, Collectivism is for the mob to appropriate all power to the elite; not for the elite to participate in.

[Islam is another collectivist society in which the rights/needs of the individual are not important, but demands each citizen serve the collective in order to maintain it. The only practical difference between Islam and Communism is that Islam is a theocracy, in which all aspects of life and society are controlled by the ideology, dispensed upon the collective, by the collective, if a theocratic government is not available.  This is why Islam has allied itself with the American Left, a curious alliance indeed.  Again, the middle class is virtually none existent, while the ruling elite prosper.]

America, conversely, was never set up to be collectivist in its ideology.

The founding documents, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were designed to protect the rights of the individual from the state. The stark difference from America and the rest of the world is that our Declaration points out that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” [Emphasis added]

See, America was never intended to be a “Top Down” authoritarian government. It is not a Democracy, where the mob rules, but a Representative Republic, governed by law instituted by the People, and Representatives of their own choosing. In the words of Lincoln, “government of the People, by the People, and for the People.”

America has always been about the Liberty of Mankind to choose his own destiny, his responsibility to his God, and his duty to preserve these things for his descendants and his fellow citizens. It has proven that the success of the collective depends upon the liberty of the individual. When the individual is allowed to prosper and flourish, the community prospers together. That was the difference between the early Colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth. Jamestown had been a “collectivist” or communal endeavor in which all property was held in common and all needs came from the common purse, or storehouse. This leads to the “freeloaders” who contribute little or nothing and consume as much as everyone else. Jamestown died. Plymouth began as such but William Bradford recognized the flawed system and allotted a parcel of land to each family to provide for their own needs and any surplus could be sold or given to a neighbor. Capitalism.

It is commonly misunderstood among the “Social Justice” crowd and many average Americans, that charity is squelched by Capitalism. Quite the contrary, capitalism begets charity, especially when the prosperous citizen believes in his Creator and therefore has a sense of duty to his fellow-man which always results in a higher rate of contribution to community than an over reaching government taking from the prosperous and “redistributing the wealth” because the government requires its cut for inefficient administrative bureaucracy.

An authoritarian government can never create a benevolent citizenry. It can only dispossess its citizens to meet its own needs. A benevolent citizenry is created by allowing that society to prosper from within, to the point of plenty, when then by the dictates of conscience, not government, each person may choose charity, thereby raising the standard of living for all. William Bradford proved it out.

The argument could easily be made that “Godless Capitalism” is evil. I would not disagree; but would remind you that “Godless anything” is evil, including Godless Government, Godless Politicians, Godless Education, Godless Finance, and Godless Media. But the striking thing here is this: Those who would decry the evils of “Godless Capitalism” are of the very persuasion that ejected God from our institutions!!

Revolution Requires Chaos

If you haven’t picked up Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” by now, you simply must read it to gather a working understanding of what Barack Obama meant when he declared the “Fundamental transformation of the United States of America”. Professor Barack Obama, our past Chief Community Organizer, taught Alinsky’s methods to his students, and integrated them into his government to a decree that, it would appear, the USA will never recover from.

Alinsky’s fundamental premise is found on page 116, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step towards community organization.” He then advises the organizer, When you are labeled an “an agitator, they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.”(p. 117)

Alinsky only left out one piece of the puzzle. What to do with what you break. Breaking the targeted system is easy; rebuilding something that is productive isn’t. But his acknowledgment at the beginning of the book should have given us a clue. To: “…the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

America stands at the most pivotal point in her history since the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which resulted in the Civil War). We are polarized. We are factionalized. Our history has been rewritten to minimize the importance of our Judeo-Christian foundation. Our institutions have been purged of morality that comes from that foundation. Our language is adulterated with vulgarities which are most commonplace in our youth. Our youth have been hijacked by powers that redefine what family is and strip them of any faith in God that was instilled as a child, and replaced with a collectivist philosophy, “from each according to ability, to each according to need”. That’s Karl Marx, by the way. It’s also most of the leadership in the current American Democrat Party, unions, our education system, and the media, and yes, it’s got a root in the Republican ranks as well.

This did not begin with Barack Obama, but it may find success in his puppets. For the last 4 years, the Revolutionaries had a personified objective, a target to rally the followers, most of which are unwitting (Lenin’s term was “Polyezniys” or useful idiots), in Donald Trump. Where, for 8 years, the White House was viewed by the media, and the ranks of the revolutionaries, as an ally, it instantly became “public enemy number one“ while Trump was in residence.

As Alinsky said, “The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the Revolution“.  Covid was a handy crisis to advance the Collective. Trump was handy to deepen the fissures. Uncle Joe is a handy puppet, and when he is used up, Kamala was the consummate choice for a Manchurian Candidate. Susan Rice is currently running things, just in case you hadn’t noticed…

The Historic lesson? Collectivist revolutions always take you farther than you want to go.

The Spiritual lesson? Godless revolutions always lead straight to Hell….

Next: The Cult of Woke





Revolution Requires Chaos

14 08 2017

If you haven’t read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” by now, you won’t understand what is happening in America. Professor Barack Obama, our past Chief Community Organizer, taught Alinsky’s methods to his students and promoted them in the White House. Candidate Hillary Clinton did her college thesis on him.

Alinsky’s fundamental premise is found on page 116.

“The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step towards community organization.” He then advises the organizer, When you are labeled an “an agitator, they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.”(p. 117)

His acknowledgment at the beginning of the book should have given us a clue. To: “…the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

America stands at the most pivotal point in her history since the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which resulted in the Civil War). We are polarized. We are factionalized. Our history has been rewritten to minimize the importance of our Judeo-Christian foundation. Our institutions have been purged of morality that comes from that foundation. Our language is adulterated with vulgarities which are most commonplace in our youth. Our youth have been hijacked by powers that redefine what family is, strip them of any faith in God that was instilled as a child, and replaced with the collectivist philosophy, “from each according to ability, to each according to need”. That’s Karl Marx, by the way. It’s also most of the leadership in the current American Democratic Party, some unions, our education system, the media, and yes, it’s beginning to take root in the Republican ranks as well.

This did not begin with Barack Obama, and it will not end now that he is out of office. The Revolutionaries now have a personified objective, a target to rally the followers, most of which are unwitting (Lenin’s term was “Polyezniys” or useful idiots), in Donald Trump. Vehement protests, fear-mongering, political stonewalling and talk of impeachment within the first 6 months is a harbinger for the next four years, unless the unthinkable were to happen, (i.e JFK), and don’t think it is not being discussed in the ranks of the revolution.

Where just a few short months ago, the White House was viewed by the media and the ranks of the revolutionaries as an ally, now it is “public enemy number one“, and as popular as it was to protest the Bush administration, that pales in comparison. (Hearken back to the Tea Party demonstrations against Obama’s policies, and anyone who protested then was simply a “racist”. Now, just as with Bush, it’s “patriotic“.)

Tragically, it doesn’t matter what President Trump does now. The narrative is in – Conservatives are Racist.

One moron who agreed with a small racist organization, which unfortunately for the vast majority of the Right has been successfully cast in the media as representative of the whole, has committed a terrorist act killing someone, and now the entirety of American conservatives who believe in small government, personal responsibility, and the Constitution, are “responsible” and the President they elected is as responsible as the driver of the car.

Are those same voices on the Left- those screaming that Trump is the culprit and responsible for all the polarization in the country- are they willing to own Ferguson? Boston? Dallas? BLM and Antifa?

Do we really know what happened in the hours leading up to the tragedy in Charlottesville? Which protesters were permitted, and which ones weren’t? Where the first rock came from? Who provoked who? Who failed to keep law enforcement between the opposing groups? Who/what the Vice Mayor is? (you prolly haven’t seen his twitter feed which is rife with anti gay, anti white, anti woman vulgarities)

I remember when the Left advocated for freedom of speech. Today, the Left advocates for shutting down speech they disagree with. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND! I do NOT agree with any group such as KKK which is obviously racist in their doctrines, actions, and presentations. Neither do I defend them, and whole-heartedly condemn that organization. But they have a right to speak, just as the Communist Party USA, the NAACP, the Boy Scouts of America, the Church of Satan, the United Methodist Church, the Freedom Road Socialists (umbrella group of the Marxist BLM organization), the Rotary Club, the Democratic and Republican Parties, Queer Nation, BLM and any other group or individual who wants to speak! (Interestingly enough, we now have fascist groups calling their enemies fascist, and racist groups calling their enemies racist.)

Speak that is!

Not riot, not block traffic and burn buildings, or run a car into a crowd of people! I don’t agree with most of these groups, but I don’t have the right to shut them down, just as they don’t have the right to shut me down!

But that effort is well under way!

Make your stupid statement of what ever your special interest is. I reserve the right to oppose you by arguing my point of view without you shutting me down. If I can’t make a coherent and logical argument as to why you’re wrong, that’s on me. I don’t have the right to violate your person and throw a rock at your empty head! If you are offended by my sign, too bad. If I protest according to the law by obtaining the proper permit to assemble (now there’s a paradox), and you rally a protest against me without the same, who is usurping the law?

But these things don’t matter. All that matters is chaos. Division. Polarization. Advance the revolution. Identity Politics.

Trump isn’t their target. Americanism is the target. Racism isn’t the target. Inequality isn’t the target. Truth is definitely not the objective. But it doesn’t matter.

It’s very simple. Divide and Conquer. As Saul Alinsky said, “The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the Revolution“.

There is blood in the water, and the frenzy has begun.





Exchanging Freedom for Equality

30 11 2015

Lenin, Jefferson, Alinsky and Tocqueville

“The end of Socialism is Communism” – Vladimir Lenin

“Polyezniy Idiot” or “Useful Idiot”:  A term coined by Vladimir Lenin to describe Westerners who blindly support Communism.

The Utopian dream of “total equality” is the crux of Communism and the fuel of revolutions for time eternal.  It also totally discounts the fallen nature of mankind.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

 Even if total political, social, and economic equality were possible to achieve, there would be those among us whose intellectual capacity, initiative and/or talents, overshadow the rest of us.  Total equality is not achievable.

Cries of “Social Justice” and “Black Lives Matter” echo in protests on college campuses and street protests around the country, largely emanating from “polyezniy idiots” who are not only ignorant to why they are protesting, but worse yet, ignorant to what the Great American Idea is; that being that all men are created equal before the law and are free to pursue a life of liberty and happiness.

“Pursue” that is.  It’s not guaranteed.  One’s own success depends upon his own desires, dreams, and abilities.  The role of the government, as originally established, is to guarantee that each individual is protected under the law so that he may be free to pursue his own place in society.  The success of the individual lies within his own limitations (everyone has them), abilities, and desires to overcome and/or apply those.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”- Declaration of Independence

All men are created equal being endowed by God with certain “unalienable rights”.  (Cannot be given or taken by any government, king, or tyrant.)  Among those rights are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. (No one has a right to deprive you of life, liberty, or things pursuant to your happiness (exploitation of ones own talents, legal/moral pursuance and acquisition of wealth and property- both physical and intellectual, living a life of liberty according to ones own choosing which does not infringe upon or require subsidization from ones neighbor.)  You are not guaranteed success in these endeavors.  You are a sovereign individual among fellow sovereign individuals, to pursue your own success.  You are also free to fail.  And most times failure precedes success.  Failure will aid success in the future if the individual learns from the experience.  But he must be allowed to fail.  (The same goes for businesses; no one is “too big to fail”.)

[Individualism as opposed to Egotism according to Tocqueville:  Individualism is a mature expression which disposes each member to sever himself from the masses into a smaller circle of family and friends leaving society at large to itself.  Egotism is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with his own person, and to prefer himself to everything in the world.]

Are the militant demands for “Equality” that bombard us on every front today a natural result of liberty in the scheme of societal evolution?  As liberty is acquired and handed down, equality in everything becomes more and more desired, even when unattainable.  Do you really want “total equality”?

A friend recently turned me on to the French writer, political thinker, and historian, Alexis D’ Tocqueville who came to America in 1845 and studied the new nation for several months.  I’ve carelessly perused some of his quotes in the past, but never really read him. My loss.  He was a contemporary of Karl Marx.  His work “Democracy in America” is his observation of the American people, their virtues and faults, their strengths and weaknesses as well, and commentary on those concerning man in general.  His remarks about liberty compared to equality are worth considering (especially in the context of my last post about “Campus Capers”).  He writes:

“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality that incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom … But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol.” -[Democracy in America, 1847, Book 2, Ch. 1]

Saul_AlinskyIt is my contention that most of these protesters are a product of a progressive/marxist education system which is designed, not to promote freedom and responsibility, but to incite a revolutionary mindset which demands “social justice” not to elevate those who “have not”, but to reduce those “haves” to a common misery, always assuming those who “have” gained by immoral means.  This is the practical result, and as Saul Alinsky wrote, “The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the Revolution.”

Again, Tocqueville:

“Democratic nations are at all times fond of equality, but there are certain epochs at which the passion they entertain for it swells to the height of fury. This occurs at the moment when the old social system, long menaced, completes its own destruction after a last intestine struggle, and when the barriers of rank are at length thrown down. At such times men pounce upon equality as their booty, and they cling to it as to some precious treasure which they fear to lose. The passion for equality penetrates on every side into men’s hearts, expands there, and fills them entirely. Tell them not that by this blind surrender of themselves to an exclusive passion they risk their dearest interests: they are deaf. Show them not freedom escaping from their grasp, whilst they are looking another way: they are blind – or rather, they can discern but one sole object to be desired in the universe…”

“I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom: left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality, their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible: they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism – but they will not endure aristocracy. This is true at all times, and especially true in our own. All men and all powers seeking to cope with this irresistible passion, will be overthrown and destroyed by it. In our age, freedom cannot be established without it, and despotism itself cannot reign without its support.” -[Ibid]

I am finding Tocqueville to be fascinating and quite prophetic.  His insight was incredible.  He called socialism a “new form of slavery” in 1848.  But my current pondering continues to be this startling matter of preferring equality to liberty.  Indeed, I believe it to be irrefutable.  The Bolsheviks are among us.  Dear God, we raised them…

 





The Dualistic Dilemma

12 07 2015

Guest Column by Jana Rea

When I was a kid, if I said something about God, people would ask me if I wanted to be a missionary. A neighbor friend once told me I should be a nun. That unsolicited advise puzzled me then, but now I understand it: Relegate the ‘religious’ to a profession so they stay put in a tidy place where ‘normal’ people don’t have to bother with the “Thees, Thy’s and Therefore’s” of dealing with a Presumed Presence from Whom we would rather keep a comfortable distance unless we need something. Let the religious do their bit while the rest of us live in the real world. The Real World. And what, pray tell, is that exactly?

I didn’t know it then but I had been subtly introduced to dualism—the assumed disparity between the seen and the unseen, between faith and reason–a kind of mental construct that assigns categories to our efforts to grasp Reality. Life assumptions—like dualism can go undetected until a conflict, or irony opens them for full view.

Recently I read an article about a movement in Australia to call the world to pray for America. The press release from the National Day of Prayer, Australia read:

“We in Australia believe it is our turn to bless the nation of America and pray for healing for the USA through prayer and fasting according to II Chronicles 7:14. We in Australia are grateful for the protection that America gave Australia and the nations of the free world during World War II.”

About the same time, a friend loaned us a copy of a self-published compilation of Kingdom Stories; The Life and Labors of Rev. G.V. Albertson (Copyright 1935 by Ruth Hill, Boston Ma). A cowboy turn preacher is a fascinating coming-of-age account that gives color and context to the territory days in ‘Bleeding Kansas’ and early settlements in Oklahoma. It is a personal narrative that reveals the hardness of life that forged the characters of our mid western fore bearers. From one chapter, “ Ill shoot the Preacher”, the author writes,

Many of this generation, hearing the gospel from fine cushioned pews, and enjoying most conventional up-to-date services, could scarcely be made to comprehend the hard beginnings of many of our churches a generation ago and particularly of some of the 2200 that have been founded by Sunday School Missionaries on the frontier . . . Good people who had taken homes there had to be most watchful for property and life; . . . all manner of crimes were being enacted. With those who stood for law and order, the Sunday School Missionary under took to build up a church. (p. 68)

While I work with our son on the renovation of a tiny house in East Lawrence, my husband oversees the building of a school in Africa as a volunteer. Continents apart, our very real worlds could not be more different. I order tile from a warehouse; a contractor measures for kitchen cabinets with special compartments for spices, trash and recycle. Meanwhile Ed admires African workers who pat down the hand-mixed pavers into the earth for the classroom floor; a wall shelf is a luxury and an unexpected convenience. The slow and steady work of missionaries is opening new opportunities and casting doubt on the efficacy of witch doctors for relief from sickness or demons. Demons–now there is a worldview indicator word!

Whether on another continent or during an earlier era, what determines this fundamental difference, besides geography and genetics? In these three cases a Judeo/Christian worldview has taken root or is taking effect; the result permeates every aspect of society—family, economy, and the judicial system. Justice in the Wild West was settled in the streets until law and order was established by a Biblical moral code. African villages under the tribal influence of ancestral loyalties and Islamic customs in some places are yielding to the good news of the God of the Bible. Industry replaces dependency so the disinherited wives and children have a livelihood; education is made affordable and opens doors to new futures for the young. America’s foundation was firmly Judeo/Christian. The unprecedented prosperity that resulted propelled prosperity else where, like Australia.

Ironically, it is not the foreign fields at risk now—it is the homeland of America. Our dualism has finally dealt us a dilemma. We have politely excised our religion out of our public square and left chards where once there was a vibrant fountain. Thankfully the mission fields in Africa and Australia and church plants of yesterday are now returning the favor by praying for America. So what does that say of our maturity, our supposed progress? It sounds more like a civilization in its dotage than its vigor. There is something very full circle or ironic about the pairing of these accounts– this frontier account of fledgling churches that became the root system of communities for generations while the fruit of their labor spread into foreign fields now offering solace to our morally bereft nation.

You have to wonder how did we get here. Critical thinking and self-examination are casualties of a culture that prefers delusions for now then simply pass the nonsense on to the next generation as they observe it practiced by us. And practice it we have. And do. Our dualism is so perfected we stay on cue, going from church to club to work to party to home and hearth and never realize how compartmentalized we have become. Split.

What is it if not schizophrenic to assert “In God We Trust” but refuse to acknowledge Him publicly or privately as the Giver of all of our Nation’s bounty? Or refuse to recognize that the Founders were devoutly determined to invoke God’s favor and did everything necessary to set their lives in agreement with His revealed Word. Divorcing sacred from secular by insisting that politics and religion cannot co-exist does not alter reality. It does however reveal the modern fault line in the American mind. However, I do believe that this split in consciousness is amendable. Where there is a will to examine one’s belief systems and make changes where necessary.

Dietrich Bonheoffer wrote, “All things appear as in a distorted mirror, if they are not seen and recognized in God.”

In Jesus Christ the reality of God has entered into the reality of this world. The place where the questions about the reality of God and about the reality of the world are answered at the same time is characterized solely by the name: Jesus Christ. God and the world are enclosed in this name . . . we cannot speak rightly of either God or the world without speaking of Jesus Christ. All concepts of reality that ignore Jesus Christ are abstractions. As long as Christ and the world are conceived as two realms bumping against and repelling each other re, we are left with only the following options. Giving up on reality as a whole, either we place ourselves in one of the two realms, wanting Christ without the world or the world without Christ—and both cases we deceive ourselves . . . There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is God’s reality revealed in Christ in the reality of the world. Partaking in Christ, we stand at the same time in the reality of God and in the reality of the world the reality of Christ embraces the reality of the world in itself. The world has no reality of its own independent of Gods’ revelation in Christ . . . [T]he theme of two realms, which has dominated the history of the church again and again, is foreign to the New Testament. (Bonhoeffer, Eric Metaxas, pg469)

Biblical support is easy to find. Colossians 1:15-20.

What governs moral law whether in remote villages, the Old West or ‘progressive’ American cities? Whether codified or not, what places a schematic in place that explains the cause and effect of human behavior within the known universe? The worldview of the inhabitants. But dualism renders it blurry.

It is time as a nation to realize that the foundation of our county and the subsequent buildings upon it are grossly incongruent. Never before has it been as obvious. There is nothing faulty with the foundation. It is brilliant. But over time we have allowed slip shod construction and derelict leaders to occupy prominence, preeminence over our Constitution and our conscience until our national contract is in shreds.

Wherever there is a virtue, there is a counterfeit.

Socialism pretends to correct American individualism with collectivism, which of course has been tried and failed and yet under the current administration has been resurrected with new meanings to our lexicon of trusted words like ‘Hope’ and Transformation, all of which peddle the deranged ideology of Saul Alinsky, exalted to czar status empowering governmental mandates from every agency; all substitutes for what God had in mind:

“Love God with all your heart and strength and mind and your neighbor as yourself.” It has been called the Golden Rule but it is much more than that because it is predicated on self-love. That only happens by first acknowledging God the Creator, Sustainer and Giver of life thus giving Him the proper honor. Then in gratitude we live as stewards of a world we did not make and do not own. Agenda 21 is the pretender of this virtue as it doesn’t recognize the proper created order and seeks to demonize ‘Man’ as the persecutor of the Earth and all the species in it. For sustainability, only an “all- wise world order” would be able to control the evil capitalists who seek profit at the expense of undeveloped counties. The problem is— who gets to make the rules in the New World Order? I hope no one I see on the world stage. No person, because human nature is not trustworthy. Government was instituted to keep human nature in check. The bigger government gets, the more humans can mess it up. It becomes a god and functions like a tyrant. God, not government rights all relationships. Self-governance precedes generosity and ethics.

It has always been about worldview, which asks the big philosophical questions of the individual and society: What is the nature of Reality? (Metaphysics), How can we know it? (Epistemology) How then shall we live? (Ethics) You would think in a university town the residents would have the tools for critical thinking but when slow cooked in the toad water of liberalism, it has fallen prey to a ploy of social justice and redistribution. Of course justice matters. But defining justice is a prerequisite to a workable solution. Muslims and Christians are worldviews apart on definitions of that word. Let’s not pretend.

In an America that is being ‘fundamentally transformed, reduced to the diminished and awkward role of a “Post-America World” player, I have dusted off my textbooks on Western Civilization which is clearly out of vogue as the current President was photographed carrying a book with that title to and from Air Force One—his free ride. Recently published textbooks enhance the view of Islam and minimize Christianity as a persecutor of all things Islamic; our universities are substituting Western Civilization with Middle Eastern Studies. To appeal the Middle Eastern dollars of course and sell our soil and soul! There is nothing more important now than a coherent worldview and to be able to articulate it. Right now we are not a melting pot, we are a cacophony of chaos due to implode.

The Judeo/Christian worldview was fundamental to the shaping of our government. Man, left to himself will corrupt, pervert and mask his intention to do so as long as possible to hold power until tyranny is inevitable. Education cannot redeem– government doesn’t succor the soul. It is not the socialist worldview nor is it the Islamist worldview that founded this country—it was the Biblical worldview.

Not long ago I was asked, “Has the Douglas County Republican Party become too religious? ”

I love the question. A perfectly legitimate one and deserves a well-reasoned answer. But before that, I need to ask questions.

What is meant by the word “religious”? The term usually has connotations of the moralistic. So if by the question they intend to ask, is it proper for a political party to assert that we live in a moral universe? I reply, Yes. And is that assertion necessary to the scope of the Republican Platform? Again I say, Yes.

If by ‘religious’ they are asking, are we promoting one religion over others, I would ask which religion is foundational to our Republic? Is it Hindu, Islam, Rastafarian Atheism, Secularism? None of the above. Only the Judeo/Christian Bible is quoted more than any other source in our founding documents. Judaism gave us the Law; Christianity gives us the only One who was able to keep it, revealing the true nature of God and paid the penalty we deserve. The Founders celebrated this. Allusions and overt references in their writings are unmistakable to the literate. Therefore when George Washington pens words like:

“… Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties move men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. What ever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

(George Washington excerpted from Farewell Address 1796)

I would ask, are we then being too religious to recall, to recite and to seek to reinstitute them? I think not. In fact I would go so far as to say, we utterly fail without them. John Adams says it better than I:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

(John Adams, in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, on October 11, 1798)

The question itself is very revealing about the American mind—it is incredibly dualistic. When we assert a belief but subvert it in word or in practice that mind is divided and integrity is at risk. If faith does not permeate all of life it is infantile at best. The unexamined mind leads to unexamined groupthink and so goes society. The only remedy is the entrance of an objective Truth and the hard work of self-examination for a unity of mind and spirit. But that of course begs the question of a spiritual dimension to our existence.

So I would ask, if the questioner is a Republican by affiliation? If so, how do they ignore the fundamental premises of the Republican Platform? If the questioner is of the Democrat party, then I understand the disassociation from God. It is systemic. Sporting a collage of contradictory worldviews is not open-minded liberalism –it is maniacal schizophrenia. We are way past resuming the integrity of our thought, word and deed as a Nation.  We must exhume rather than resume.

The confusion I have felt for the better part of 8 years is how to invest my life energy, how to live faithfully when every system in our society is teetering toward collapse. I have chosen to stand squarely on the Republican platform admitting no contradiction to my worldview. I have chosen to stand in a political field erstwhile it questions the viability and relevance of faith; I have chosen Christianity while that faith field in practice often dismisses the immediate or ultimate benefit of the political endeavor. I must somehow find those contradictions illogical as did Dietrich Bonheoffer, whose integrity inspires me in these days.

In the meantime, the Judeo Christian worldview is on the public scaffold. Adherents may follow. However, the God of all Time and all nations will not be mocked and laughs at the derision of Man. Psalms 2. He would shepherd the fatherless and the widow at the very end of all time, and draw nearest to the broken-hearted. Psalms 145. Eventually we will no longer see darkly through the dust of dilemmas but clearly when we see Him face to face. II Corinthians 13:12, Psalms 17:15.

Until then, Reality begs for participants.





Social Justice: A Key Philosophy of Islam

5 10 2011

What do Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Progressives and Greens all have in common?  The ideal of “Social Justice”.

This Utopian philosophical mainstay has been around for quite a while and had its modern roots in the “Social Gospel” espoused by the Episcopalian Church in the early 20th century.  Other similar variant philosophies such as “Liberation Theology” have come out of religious ideologies taught by Roman Catholic clergy in Latin America which merged Marxism with theological teachings of Utopian objectives.   The United Methodist Church has fully embraced “Social Justice” as one of its “Methods”, citing “It is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.”    (Even the Green Party movement has as one of its “four pillars”, social justice as a basic tenet.)  I don’t recall Jesus Christ ever admonishing the government of Rome to provide social services to its subjects.  He did however, admonish His followers to provide for the poor…of their own initiative, not by compulsory government intervention.

Post Millennialism is an extra-Biblical doctrine in Christendom which says that in order for Jesus to return to Earth, Mankind must cleanse the world of all the social evils that plague the planet.   In other words, when we get it right, He will return.  Human nature is, of course, antithetical to that objective in light of the fact that all humans are sinful creatures; thus the need for redemption from the curse of death, visa vi the Savior.  Post-Millennialism is indeed an ingenious method to distract  “Christian” religious organizations who have “left their first love” and become diverted from proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to a lost and sinful world. It is a theological seed-bed for “Social Gospel” which is strictly a works based religious theology.  To quote Adrian Rogers, it is “religion working to make the world a better place to go to Hell from.”

The Social Gospel was the root of “Progressivism” in early 1900’s US politics, which became more Leftist each time it “reformed”.  Included in that early movement were names like Teddy Roosevelt,  Woodrow Wilson, FDR.

Socialists of the same era included Upton Sinclair, founder of the ACLU and California candidate for governor who wrote,

“The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to “End Poverty in California” I got 879,000.”

Another noteworthy name in American Progressive/Socialist politics is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and advocate of eugenics who was cited by Nazi’s at the Nuremberg Trials as foundational in developing their own programs of genocide and sterilization.  Planned Parenthood annually awards recipients worthy of her memory. Recipients include names such as Jane Fonda, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Ted Turner.

Today, Progressives are a large part of both the Green and Democrat parties, while raw Socialists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Communists pretty much make up the remainder of the two.  Just my opinion…(Heck, progressives are entrenched in the Republican Party as well. We call them “Moderates”.)

Today’s proponents of Social Justice are a mix of religious zealots, atheistic Leftist elites, and a smattering of environmentalist activists (most of these would qualify as religious zealots).  It is an ideology which has infiltrated American institutions from the schoolhouse, to the mainstream churches, to the media.

“Social justice” is one of the core values of Fethullah Gulen’s “Turkish Movement”.  The not so “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood also espouses social justice as a core value.  Stands to reason as this is one of the key principles of Islam.

You see in Islam, just as in Socialism, Progressivism, and Communism, it is the government’s/ruler’s responsibility to redistribute resources from those who have, or produce them, to those who have not.  As Marx put it, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”

Yes, “social justice” translates as “income and/or property redistribution”.   Now you know why Muslim’s vote Democrat.

This serves to explain the “unholy” alliance that has been made between the Left and Islamic activists in the West, especially in Canada and the United States.  The shared ideologies of  “solidarity”, “social justice,” and a common desire to smother capitalism and a free and open society, have consolidated the opponents of traditional American values into a deadly and powerful force that has found refuge in the highest offices in the land.

Aside from the long list of administrative appointments that our current President has given in sensitive positions (such as Department of Homeland Security) to at least one self-styled Communist, at least 3 Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, at least one open proponent of Sharia Law, and at least one documented socialist, (Not an exhaustive list, mind you; just a cursory perusal of Administration Staff) a recent poll indicates an overwhelming approval of the Obama Presidency among America’s Islamic community.

Pew Research Center released its latest polling data showing vast differences between the average American citizen and Muslim’s (American) satisfaction with the President.  Whereas in 2007, President Bush’s approval among U. S. Muslims was 15% and 69% disapproved, the 2011 data showed that only 14% disapproved of President Obama while an overwhelming 76% approved.

As Pew said in its own report, “Muslim-Americans clearly see a friend in Obama.”  You can read the Wall Street online article titled, “A Muslim President, After All”.  This is quite revealing in light of the Gallup approval rating for Obama at 42%, the lowest among Americans since he took office, with a disapproval rating of 50%.  His approval rating among American blacks (I refuse to hyphenate Americans) has dropped in the last 5 months from 83% to 58%, 18 points lower than that of America’s Islamic community.

So how is that religions and political ideologies that are so antithetically opposed to one another, such as Islam and atheistic Communism (or Progressivism) can cooperate so fully in their  political endeavors?   These forces have been at bloody odds for generations.

The “End Game” for both is the same.  There is an old (supposed) Arab proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend“.  This is a doctrine that has been implemented by military powers throughout history and has been used by most.  The Western Alliance and Russia both used each other to defeat the Nazi’s in WW2.  It is no strange tool to politics.  In fact, it is nearly a prescribed strategy in politics.

The interesting thing about this modern scenario in America, is each ideological group believes they will come out in control in the end.  The basic premise is use the others to my advantage until our common enemy is vanquished, then I can overpower the other interests. It is classic Saul Alinsky.   The Leftist Elite are so arrogant, they believe they can “be nice” to Islam and help/use Islam to subvert the American system and culture, and afterward; when the objective is reached and America is “Fundamentally transformed” (as Mr. Obama so eloquently put it) then Islam will politely co-exist with the Socialists.  Laughable…

Every good Islamist and those who know Islam understand that “co-existence” is not in the Quranic vocabulary.  But the arrogance of the godless Humanists brings a strong delusion which renders the mind incapable of basic reasoning skills and the natural instinct of survival.  The principle of Abrogation, taught by Muhammad and attested to in Quran, does not allow Islam to “co-exist” with any government, culture, or religion. It must, by its very nature, dominate.

Someone is going to be very disappointed in “the enemy of his enemy” after the objective is accomplished.  There is no dhimmitude status afforded atheists.  There is no tolerance for intellectual dissension.  Only conversion or death.

Social Justice? To the Leftist Elite it’s a Utopian pipe dream.  To Islam? It is prescribed by Sharia. One needs only examine those countries where Sharia is enforced to see what a Utopian lifestyle is available there.  Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia…

Social Justice indeed.

I guess it depends on who is “defining the narrative”…Keep in mind the Islamic narrative in the United States is currently being defined by CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.








%d bloggers like this: