The Unfaithful Shepherds of Today’s Reformed Christian Ministry

A Call to Repentance

The Unfaithful Shepherd by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

“But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming,
and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.” (John 10:12)

by Stuart DiNenno

It is assumed from the outset that the Christian reader of this article has both enough discernment of the times and a sufficient knowledge of history to recognize the wretchedly low condition of Christianity today. Only those who are completely blind to reality can deny that both the institutions and influence of our religion have been on the decline and in retreat in Western nations for many, many years and that what were once Christian civilizations in Europe, along with their former colonies in North America and other parts of the world, have fallen away and become decidedly anti-Christian. Abominations that in former times could not even be mentioned above the volume of a whisper are now openly practiced and encouraged — even publicly praised. The general culture has almost entirely reverted back to the brutish degeneracy of ancient Rome, the putative church is fragmented into thousands of sects and independent churches teaching a multitude of conflicting doctrines, and the so-called Christians who comprise their congregations are increasingly being conformed in thought, word, and deed to the apostate zeitgeist.

The condition is easily recognized but the disease must be diagnosed and the cause of it identified. Otherwise, there can be no cure. The title of this article sets forth an accusation: the pastors and teachers of today’s so-called Reformed churches are unfaithful shepherds. The root cause of the disease that has brought both the churches and our civilization to their present deplorable condition is the infidelity of the modern-day ministry. Today’s ministers, and the recent generations of their predecessors, have miserably failed to uphold their responsibility to be watchmen over the flock. Just as the shepherd in the painting above, they have abandoned the sheep to the wolves.

The purpose of this article is not merely to find fault but also to correct the fault. It is a call to repentance directed at today’s professing Christian ministers. It may be charged against the writer that he has no authority to make such a call but such a charge is immaterial. The facts themselves and the arguments in which they are framed are sufficient to establish the truth of the matter and thereby reveal the need for repentance.

So an assertion has been made, but before we begin to prove the truth of it we must first establish a standard by which to make our judgment. To that end, we have to determine what is the primary duty of a Christian minister. What is the one responsibility so essential to ministry that if a minister fails to do it, then he cannot be considered faithful to his calling? If it can be shown that he is entirely or consistently failing in this one principal task, then it is valid to maintain that he is unfaithful. (While it is understood by the author that other servants of the church may be rightly called ministers, the reader should understand that for the purposes of this article, he is applying the word “minister” specifically to preachers, i.e., those who minister the Word of God).

We must recognize that those in the professional ministry have important duties other than preaching. However, we need not digress into examining the other functions of a minister as it should be accepted without controversy by all those who profess to adhere to the Reformed faith that preaching is the primary function of a professional Christian minister. One of the cardinal doctrines asserted by the Protestant Reformers is that of the centrality of preaching. The Christian minister is to be first and foremost a minister of truth, and, if he is not, then he is failing to do his duty regardless of how well he may perform any other services to the church. Therefore if we are going to judge whether the so-called Reformed ministers in America are faithfully discharging their duty at this point in history, whether in individual cases or collectively, then we must make that judgment according to the standard of their preaching. We need to be able to determine rightly whether a man is a faithful preacher of Christian doctrine.

Most would probably hold that a faithful preacher is one who fully, accurately, and plainly expounds biblical doctrine. That answer, however, is only half right, and, if the reader agreed with this definition, then he needs to come to an understanding of this fact: a Christian minister could, over the course of his career, preach the equivalent of the entirety of such magnificent theological works as Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the whole Bible, John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, the sixteen volumes of John Owen’s Complete Works, not deviate on any point of Christian doctrine expressed in the best Reformed confessions and catechisms, do all of his preaching in a skillful, cogent, and captivating way that edifies his hearers, and yet still be abjectly unfaithful to his calling.

At this point, some are likely scratching their heads and thinking: How can this be possible? How can one thoroughly and expertly expound upon Christian doctrine of the highest order for an entire lifetime and still not be a faithful preacher?

It is obvious that a minister can be unfaithful by preaching false doctrines and it is certain that many are being taught today throughout the various branches of professing Christendom. However, it is important to understand that a preacher can not only sin in what he proclaims but also in what he fails to proclaim. The veracity required to be a faithful preacher is very similar to that required by the courtroom oath with which the reader is likely familiar: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” One can fulfill the first clause of the oath by telling the truth, and he can fulfill the third clause by telling nothing but the truth, but if he is failing to fulfill the second clause by not telling the whole truth, then his account is incomplete, his story will be distorted, and he will have broken the oath. Similarly, a preacher can proclaim truth and even proclaim nothing but truth, yet not proclaim the whole truth. He can be unfaithful by failing to give his disciples the knowledge that is necessary for them to effectively apply their religion to all aspects of their lives and to the societies in which they live, and by neglecting to provide them the information they need to defend themselves and the church against those anti-Christs who are working to destroy both. He may appear to be faithful in his preaching because he is not proclaiming anything erroneous, but all the while he is a spectacular failure because of what is absent from his preaching.

The Bible describes itself as a sword. It is a weapon to be used against our enemies — the flesh, the devil, and the world — but like any weapon, it cannot be used effectively without an understanding of the opponent it is to be used against. Any competent military leader will tell you that even an enormous army with highly trained troops and the most excellent equipment cannot hope to defeat an enemy of whom they have no intelligence. If a leader does not know where the enemy is located, has no knowledge of his strategies, and cannot even properly identify him, then he has no possibility of being victorious over that enemy. All the careful training of his troops and the expense of his powerful weapons will have been wasted.

And herein lies the failure of today’s professional ministers. Although men who are both very knowledgeable about the Bible and are theologically accurate in their teaching are in short supply today, the greater problem among the modern-day ministry is that the knowledge and abilities they do possess are not being used to combat the evil doctrines and practices that have destroyed our civilization and are destroying the churches. Even the few that are properly educated and are teaching accurate theology have little knowledge of the enemies that have been deliberately undermining Christianity and Western civilization for multiple generations, and so they are like a blind man leading an army — wandering around in the dark with no idea of where the enemy is or what he is doing, let alone how to engage and overcome him.

As if this were not bad enough, not only do today’s church leaders lack knowledge of the enemy from their own intelligence corps, but the great majority of them are operating under the intelligence provided by the enemy. That is, their worldview and understanding of history is, to a large degree, not of a Christian origin, coming from within the church, but of an anti-Christian origin, coming from the apostate world. And so whatever knowledge they do have is mostly interpreted through the lens of ungodly presuppositions and therefore is distorted in such a way that it serves the enemy’s agenda.

Such ministers, of course, cannot teach others those truths of which they themselves have no knowledge, or are deceived about, and so the result is that the great majority of professing Christians today, even those relative few who are being taught orthodox theology, do not have a Christian worldview and do not understand the forces that have been working against them for many years, and so they are ill-equipped to defend themselves against the anti-Christs, much less are they able to militate for the furtherance of the kingdom of God in the world.

If the assertions above as to the benighted state of today’s professional ministry are doubted, then try asking Christian ministers to give an explanation of Cultural Marxism. Most cannot even begin to define it, though it is a philosophy and movement that has the explicit goal of overthrowing Christian morality, and has largely succeeded in doing so, having infiltrated the thinking of almost everyone in North America and Europe today to varying degrees. Inquire about Franz Boas, Antonio Gramsci, or Herbert Marcuse. Most likely, they will not have even heard these names before, yet, these wicked men have shaped the morality and worldview of modern Americans and Europeans far more than any Christian. Interrogate them about the French Revolution. It will be found that they know little about it, much less will they be able to tell an inquirer how its egalitarian spirit, and the forces behind it, are still shaping our world today. Likewise, they know nearly nothing about the origin, influence, and direction of all the Jewish-led philosophies, movements, and organizations that have destroyed and continue to destroy millions of individuals, families, and even entire nations and how the destruction is being accomplished via propaganda to children through public schools, universities, television, films, and other sources, and has been for generations. Not only will they be unable to inform you about any of it, but most likely they will dismiss it all, out of ignorance, as “conspiracy theories” and even find fault with the inquirer for asking them about this subject, because they lack the wisdom or courage to question, rather than uncritically accept, the anti-Christian worldview and narrative of history that is spoon-fed to them through the mainstream sources. All the aforementioned ideologies, and the campaigns to inculcate them, have destroyed the moral fabric of Western, formerly Christian, nations and largely subverted the churches as well but so-called Christian ministers are almost completely oblivious to them. They do not know and, in most cases, they do not want to know. Paul the apostle said that he was not ignorant of Satan’s devices (2 Corinthians 2:11). Today’s ministers are not only ignorant of them but willfully so. They are unfaithful watchmen who have failed to blow the trumpet in warning to the people “…if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand. (Ezekiel 33:6)

For the most part, the religious professionals in America have turned Christianity into an ineffectual and emasculated religion that is devoid of spiritual power and virile boldness — one that only desires to hide away from the world while evil takes dominion over the society beyond the four walls of its meeting places. In certain cases, it still retains some, or even much, of the form and profession of true Christianity. However, these are mostly just hollow vestiges of the robust faith of our forefathers, and it has, in reality, degenerated into a compartmentalized, inward-looking religion that only concerns itself with an intellectual comprehension of doctrine (to greater and lesser degrees across the various denominations), some aspects of personal piety, and the things practiced in the few hours of the church’s weekly assembly. As Christian writer Joe Boot put it, “Since the so-called Enlightenment, Christians have steadily surrendered the various organs of culture — education, law, arts, charity, medicine, government — almost entirely to the increasingly machiavellian humanistic state. We have progressively retreated into a pietistic bubble, concerned largely with eternal verities and keeping souls from hell, and we have faithlessly limited Christ’s jurisdiction to the institutional church. The result has been the marginalization of the Christian church and a change of religion in the public sphere.” What is called Christianity today is no longer a militant force for converting the people and transforming the culture. The modern-day churches have a truncated form of godliness that lacks the power to overcome the forces of Satan which are conquering the world. This is blatant infidelity. As 20th century theologian R. J. Rushdoony stated: “A piety which concerns itself only with man’s soul and leaves the world to the devil is a profane piety.” Not only does today’s profane form of Christianity fail to stand against the spirit of the age but it continually and increasingly conforms itself to that spirit.

This is no new phenomenon. “There is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). It is ever the tendency of fallen men to reduce the worship of God to mere external forms and professions, rather than to demonstrate genuine obedience by applying the law of God to every facet of their own lives and working to conform their societies to biblical principles. The Bible testifies that this was the case repeatedly with the Israelites and historians have said the same about Christians during the Middle Ages: “They fulfilled all the external obligations of the faith and they would have been shocked if they had been told they were not good Christians. But they tended more and more to put their religion in a separate compartment where it would have little influence on their daily life.” (Strayer, Gatzke, and Harbison, The Course of Civilization, 1961). It is the duty of Christian ministers to heed the scriptural warnings against such hypocritical behavior and to learn from history the consequences of the same, in order that they be able to recognize and correct it. Instead today’s ministers participate in the hypocrisy by lamenting the tremendous amount of perversion, infidelity, and blasphemy that is being publicly manifested in Western nations today, recognizing the obvious wickedness but being blind to the fact that the reduction and compartmentalization of Christianity that they teach and exemplify is the very thing that has allowed it to proliferate.

It is of vital importance that Christian ministers in all eras gain a thorough knowledge of their present culture, understand the driving forces behind it, and stand against the destructive spirit of the age. As 19th century Christian writer J. C. Ryle said: “…it is a most important thing to understand the times in which we live, and to understand what those times require. Next to our Bibles and our own hearts, our Lord would have us study our own times.” Protestant reformer Martin Luther stated: “The duty of every believer in every age is to find out the spirit of the age and stand against it.” Another quote often attributed to Luther: “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” The battle is raging today but the professional Christian soldiers have abandoned the fight and hidden themselves away behind stacks of theology books. As Presbyterian minister J. Gresham Machen said approximately 100 years ago, “Shut yourself up in an intellectual monastery, do not disturb yourself with the thoughts of unregenerate men, and of course you will find it easier to be a Christian, just as it is easier to be a good soldier in comfortable winter quarters than it is on the field of battle. You save your own soul — but the Lord’s enemies remain in possession of the field.” Perhaps some of them will save their own souls but the writer of this article believes it is more likely that if today’s Christian ministers continue in such disloyal behavior they will be condemned along with the unfaithful servant who likewise buried his talent in the earth rather than putting it to use to further the kingdom (Matthew 25:14-30).

The vast majority of Christian ministers are failing both to educate themselves as to the forces working to destroy Christianity and preaching against the same. What the motives are for their behavior differs from one individual to another. In some it may be cowardice: a fear of either losing their jobs or receiving the scorn of colleagues, friends and family members if they speak out and swim against the tide. In some it may be a desire for a form of profit: conforming to the infidelity of the times, or at least not resisting it, in order to gain money, receive prestige, or advance their positions. Others may be apathetic and lazy: just punching the time clock and collecting a paycheck while doing only enough to keep up the appearance of fulfilling their ministerial obligations. Still others may sincerely believe that they are properly fulfilling the duty of a Christian minister because they judge themselves by what the other ministers in their churches or denominations are preaching and practicing, failing to recognize that a form of infidelity has pervaded them all. It also ought not to be doubted that there are some in the professional ministry who intentionally are undermining true Christianity, being blind guides themselves and helping to lead others into a ditch. Whatever the case for each individual, what was said by a medieval writer about the Christian ministers in his day is largely true of Christian ministers today: “For there is no spirit of liberty or independence in them to lift up their voices against the powers of the world. No valor to protect the truth in time of danger. So long as they prosper in their own concerns, so long as they realize the objects of their ambition or avarice, they hold in small account the loss of the things of Jesus Christ” (John of Salisbury, The Policraticus, 1159 A.D.). What drives each man to do what he does, we need not know. It is enough to examine the unfaithful actions of the professional ministers collectively and render a judgment.

A question that surely reveals the infidelity of the modern-day Reformed ministry is this: If they are preaching genuine biblical Christianity, as they claim, then why are they never persecuted? We might expect them to be unmolested in a society that has already experienced a thoroughgoing revival of Christianity and a comprehensive reformation of the church, but should we expect them to be at peace in an utterly depraved and anti-Christian culture such as we have today in Western countries? Certainly not. The early Christian church was surrounded by a similarly degenerate pagan culture and it was bitterly persecuted. The Bible tells us “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12). It testifies that John the Baptist was beheaded (Matthew 14:10), Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 7:59), James was slain with the sword (Acts 12:2), Paul received the “forty lashes minus one” five times from the Jews (2 Corinthians 11:24), Peter was imprisoned twice (Acts 5:18Acts 12:4), beaten by the authorities at least once (Acts 5:40), and all the apostles suffered persecution of some sort. Likewise, the recorded history of the early post-apostolic church tells us that many Christian ministers were martyred for their faith, and there is no doubt that many more of them suffered lesser forms of persecution. The same happened during the Protestant Reformation when the Reformers stood against the apostate Romanist pseudo-church. In stark contrast, today’s professional ministers are at peace in nations that have not seen similar levels of public wickedness since ancient Rome. It is certain that none of the “Reformed” ministers in this generation is going to be added to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, and it is doubtful that anyone reading this article can name even one so-called Reformed minister who has suffered any real persecution of any kind. The fact that such persecution is non-existent today is, in itself, damning evidence that today’s professional ministers are not preaching authentic Christianity but only an eviscerated counterfeit.

It is very important to understand this point: the reason that persecution never comes upon today’s churches is not because their ministers do not preach any truth. In fact, there are still more than a few churches where a great deal of truth is taught. The reason persecution never comes upon them is that they only teach what might be called comfortable truths. That is, they largely focus on matters of personal piety, corporate worship practice, and abstract theological doctrines. Of course, such things are good and necessary to be taught but the infidelity lies in the fact that the modern-day ministry, generally speaking, refuses to teach those things which cause offense to the unregenerate and they especially avoid preaching about anything which would bring them into conflict with the ungodly world outside of their church building safe space. They preach and practice a fantasy land religion that takes pains to be innocuous and allows them to pretend that all the degeneracy in the larger society is not going to overtake them. It is a cowardly strategy that requires continual retreat and compromise, and it will end in the loss of what little life such churches have left in them.

If it is true that a Christian minister is no better than the evil he fails to stand against, then it must be said that today’s ministers are, for the most part, woeful failures, as very few of them have forcefully taken a stand against the doctrines and the movements that are destroying the institutional church and Christian civilizations and have been doing so for many years.

How many of them speak out against all of the egalitarian lies in which we are told that everyone is equal regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual practice?

How many of them speak out against the feminism that has made many American women into pseudo-men, has largely destroyed motherhood and the family, and has resulted in infanticide on an enormous scale?

How many of them speak out against all of the sexual perversion and confusion that is running rampant through our society and into which American children are being indoctrinated and by which many of them will be destroyed?

How many of them speak out against all of the unjust warfare that our government has prosecuted over more than 100 years on behalf of the Jews and their “Israel”, the interests of mega-corporations, and the bankers, resulting in many millions of dead Americans and foreign non-belligerents with no end in sight?

How many of them speak out against the grand larceny of socialism that has made all Americans participants in thievery for at least the past 80 years and which is increasing every year?

How many of them speak out against our fraudulent money system and the usurious banking establishment?

How many of them speak out against the fact that our country is being flooded with many millions of foreigners bringing with them a multitude of alien cultures and false, anti-Christian religions?

How many of them have even bothered to educate themselves as to the sources and driving forces behind these destructive movements? That is, how they came into being and who is running them? The reality is that most of the professional ministry is almost entirely ignorant of these things, being not only uninformed about them during their college and seminary courses, but also even largely indoctrinated into them.

We need to understand that preaching accurate biblical doctrine, while certainly a commendable attribute, is not the only test of a faithful Christian minister. A man may not be teaching any doctrines that could be called heretical, but if he is manifesting timidity, cowardice, and an obvious faint-hearted tendency to avoid opposing evil in an age that has a crying need for him to do so, then he is a heretic. Actions speak louder than words, and inaction often speaks the loudest. The orthodoxy of Christian ministers must be judged not only by the doctrines they proclaim but also by the virtuous, principled, manly behavior (or lack of it) they exemplify and whether they will boldly stand against evil or fearfully shrink back from it.

Now if any man believes this to be new doctrine, that is, he claims that orthodoxy was not judged in such a way by the historic Reformed Church and that the author of this article is only setting his own standards, then let him reference the act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, from August 3, 1648, entitled “Censuring Ministers for Their Silence and Not Speaking to the Corruptions of the Time” in which, as is obvious from the title, the general assembly of the Church of Scotland directed that every church in their realm was to be intolerant of those ministers who did not speak against the evils taking place in the society around them. According to this act, those who would not do so were to be disciplined for their unfaithful ministry and even excommunicated if they persisted in the same behavior. Keep in mind that this is a document produced at the time of the Westminster Assembly by the churches that most fully adhered to it, and this general assembly would have included many of the same men who drafted the Westminster Standards. Furthermore, in the same act the ministers who authored it referred to two other church documents from earlier periods of the Reformation which supported their position. This is not an innovation; it was and remains the established Reformed position.

It was stated earlier in this article that “the root cause of the disease that has brought both the churches and our civilization to their present deplorable condition is the infidelity of the modern-day ministry.” While this is true, could it be the case that there is something even more fundamentally wrong? Could it be that the root is bad because the soil in which it has grown is rotten? This is, in fact, the case. The Bible tell us that the quality of the leaders over God’s people is a reflection of the fidelity of the people from whom they spring and over whom they rule. When the people are faithful God blesses them by appointing faithful men over them. When they are unfaithful their leaders become a curse and one of the means by which God punishes them. Notice how the faithfulness of Israel’s king was conditioned on the faithfulness of the people: “Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired! and, behold, the LORD hath set a king over you. If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God” (1 Samuel 12:13-14). This is as much true of religious leaders as it is of political leaders. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians the cause of unfaithful religious leaders is explicitly stated. They are what the people want: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

As Reformed church elder Mark Chambers stated: “God’s rule is always from the bottom up. Faithless enemies as leaders of God’s people are His punishment for their faithlessness. The problem is in the mirror. The pulpit is a symptom, not the first cause. Since the people are the reason the leaders are there it must be the people who are responsible for their removal. When God’s people see their own condition and repent they will purge the pulpit of the ignorant, the deceiver, the infidel. We the people are the cause of the rebel in the pulpit and we the people will be the cause of their removal.”

It has been said that a religion which never costs you anything will, in the end, be worth exactly what you paid for it. This being so, then what will be the end of the overwhelming majority of today’s professing Christian ministers and their supporters who not only suffer no persecution but rarely bear even minor inconveniences or discomforts for their so-called faith because they preach and practice a reduced form of Christianity that never brings them into conflict with the world? It will be nothing good unless repentance is forthcoming. Infidelity brings God’s curse on individuals and nations but the cure is a simple one, regardless of the offense or how the punishment is manifested: “If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:13-14). “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8)

The modern-day Christian ministry is almost entirely failing to warn the flock about the dangers around them. They are unfaithful shepherds who have abandoned the sheep to the wolves. They delude themselves and their followers into believing that they are being faithful to their calling because they teach biblical truths, while they simultaneously fail to expose and stand against the onslaught of the ungodly. Because of them not only has the general culture been lost to the anti-Christs but even their own churches have largely succumbed to the same. If we are going to be faithful to God we must call to repentance those who are failing in such a way and if they refuse to reform themselves, then they either must be excommunicated by their churches or the faithful must abandon those churches which show themselves to be apostate by failing to take action against them.

Religious Freedom at Risk

sign pointing to plymouth rock where the pilgrims landed

(Andrea La Corte/Dreamstime)

By Jerry NewcombeTuesday, 24 November 2020 08:26 AM

Four hundred years ago this month, a weary band of Christians from England came ashore in New England after a grueling 66-day voyage aboard the Mayflower.

The Pilgrims came for one purpose, which they spelled out in writing: “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.”

It was all about religious freedom. They wanted to worship Jesus in the purity of the Gospel.

150 years after the Pilgrims came, the founders of this nation enshrined religious freedom in our national charter, the Constitution.

When the Constitution was first written, there were some hesitations toward ratifying it. Many of those who accepted it did so upon the assurance that religious freedom would be guaranteed. Thus, the founders amended the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, the document’s first 10 amendments.

First and foremost among these was religious freedom. The first two freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment deal with religious liberty. In effect, these liberties were understood to mean there would be no national denomination, and people were free to practice their faith as they saw fit. Implied in that is that the non-believer would be free to practice his lack of faith.

Jump forward to today, 400 years after the Pilgrims arrived, and in the land for which they sought refuge, religious freedom is at risk. With tongue in cheek, one wag asked, “Can we uninstall 2020 and install it again? This version has a virus.”

That virus, COVID-19, has been the excuse many anti-Christians bigots have used to try to hamstring churches. We have seen in the last several months an unprecedented assault on religious freedom.

Just consider a few examples:

  • Last week a judge in California ruled that strip clubs should be allowed to re-open, despite the pandemic, because the First Amendment is not nullified by a virus. And yet at the very same time, officials in California insist churches must be closed or severely limited because of the pandemic.
  • The Supreme Court ruled in the Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak case (July 24) out of Nevada that it was OK for the state to limit how many people could attend worship services, but the casinos were allowed to operate more freely. In his dissent on this case, Justice Neil Gorsuch declared, “…there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”
  • Abortion clinics have been deemed “essential services” by a number of liberal governors, while churches are categorized as “non-essential.”

The Rev. John MacArthur is one of the most listened-to and respected Bible teachers in our time. His church is in the greater Los Angeles area. He is generally not one to speak out on political matters. But after months of the pandemic and the way many state officials impair churches because of it, MacArthur decided that enough is enough. He reopened his church — despite threats from state and local officials.

Jenna Ellis, MacArthur’s attorney from the Thomas More Society, said “Our position has been that LA County shutting down churches indefinitely amid a virus with a 99.98% survival rate, especially when state-preferred businesses are open and protests are held without restriction, is unconstitutional and harmful to the free exercise of religion.”

Kelly Shackelford of First Liberty, which also fights for religious freedom, told D. James Kennedy Ministries: “All people have to do is look at the ‘experts’ saying, ‘Well, you can’t sing at church, but oh yeah, the [BLM and Antifa] protests, we’re OK with that because that’s important.”

It would appear that Christophobic bigots are using the pandemic to curb religious freedom in a country that was born for religious freedom.

Author and speaker Bill Federer once told me in a TV interview:

“Tolerance was an American Christian contribution to the world. Just as you drop a pebble in the pond, the ripples go out, there was tolerance first for Puritans and then Protestants, then Catholics, then liberal Christians, and then it went out completely to Jews. Then in the early 1900s, tolerance went out to anybody of any faith, monotheist or polytheist. Finally, within the last generation, tolerance went out to the atheist, the secular humanist and the anti-religious. And the last ones in the boat decided it was too crowded and decided to push the first ones out. So now we have a unique situation in America, where everybody’s tolerated except the ones that came up with the idea. And so when people say Christians are intolerant, we really need to correct them and say, ‘No, we’re the ones that came up with the idea of tolerance.'”

The Pilgrims sacrificed everything they had to practice religious freedom. It would be horrible to see the gift they bequeathed to the world uprooted in our time by secular fundamentalists.

Jerry Newcombe is co-host/senior TV producer of Kennedy Classics. He has written/co-written 25 books, including “The Book That Made America, Doubting Thomas” (with Mark Beliles), “What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?” (With D. James Kennedy), and “George Washington’s Sacred Fire” (with Peter Lillback). Read Jerry Newcombe’s Reports — More Here.

The Left’s Final Objective Is Subversion of Western Civilization, (2)

By Vasko Kohlmayer December 5, 2020

In the previous piece we showed that ending (non-existent) racism could not have been the real goal of the riots that convulsed the United States this year. Rather we argued that the riots represented a dramatic eruption of the left’s anti-western animus which is the psychological disposition that frames the left’s mindset and actions.

We will see what the riots’ real purpose was when we consider what the so-called anti-racist “protestors” targeted for destruction. In the weeks following the death of George Floyd hundreds of attacks against Catholic churches were reported across America. This may seem strange, given that America’s woke commissars of social justice never really charged the Catholic Church with complicity in this country’s current “racist” regime or the death of George Floyd. If anything, in recent years the Church has been a notable abettor of the progressive movement, having incorporated parts of the woke agenda into its own teachings. This has been especially true during the pontificate of Francis who in many ways sounds like a secular progressive clad in papal robes.

The protestors’ raids on Catholic churches, therefore, bewildered many people. But if you remember what the left’s driving impulse is, these acts will make perfect sense. Despite its recent dabbling in wokeness, the Catholic Church – along with our classical Greco-Roman heritage – has been a foundational pillar of Western civilization. This is the real reason why the churches became a target of the left’s destructive urge. To make their motivation completely clear, in some instances the protestors even inscribed sickle and hammer on the walls of the sacred structures they vandalized. Sickle and hammer stand, of course, for the Soviet Union and its communist revolution which condemned the western model and established a new system based on ideas that were antithetical to occidental tradition.

The attacks on churches, however, were not the only clue exposing the hidden agenda behind the faux anti-racist protests. The war on statues was just as revealing. They initially began with monuments of those who had at least some connection – however remote or tenuous – to slavery. Very quickly, however, no statue was safe from the mob’s wrath. So much so that they targeted even those who had done much for the advancement and liberation of black people. Abraham Lincoln would be one of them. This despite the fact that Lincoln is generally considered to be the man who effectually ended slavery in the United States. The widely-held view of Lincoln as the emancipator of black people was well expressed by the journalist Edward Achorn who wrote recently that in most Americans’ eyes Lincoln stands as “a symbol of wisdom, decency, sacrifice, and perseverance in defeating slavery and liberating millions of black Americans.”

And yet the allegedly “anti-racism” protesters repeatedly attacked Lincoln’s statues across America. The attacks were so flagrant that even CNN had to take note. In its October 12 dispatch, CNN reported that “protesters in Portland, Oregon, pulled down statues of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt…”

The protesters did not stop there, however. As part of their statue rampage, they also attacked edifices associated with our national heritage. In a piece headlined “The Mob Goes After Abraham Lincoln,” the Daily Signal reported that they “trashed the Oregon Historical Society, which preserves treasures of the past so that people of succeeding generations may understand their culture and history.”Buy New $61.98(as of 04:50 EST – Details)

The next morning CNN quoted Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell who made this observation:

“These events late at night, they purport to have a racial justice nexus. But they’re not that. They’re about violence and criminal destruction.”

Chuck Lovell is absolutely correct. The rioters’ actions had nothing to do with race – they were all about destruction. As was the case with the churches, their behavior may seem irrational, but only until we remind ourselves of the left’s ideological purpose. The structures and statues they vandalized commemorated the efforts of people who in one way or another advanced the cause of western civilization. It is the protestors’ deep-seated antipathy toward the west that explains why they acted the way they did.

Since the leftist mindset is transnational in nature, we could expect that a powerful eruption of its anti-western animus in one country would trigger corresponding disruptions in other countries belonging to the western stream. And this was, in fact, what happened. Within two weeks of the start of the George Floyd riots in the United States, similar events began taking place in other western nations. The protests waxed especially strong in leading European countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany where hundreds of thousands took part. On June 6th a British newspaper ran a  report which opened as follows:

“Furious Europeans have taken to the street this week to protest against police brutality and racism, following the death of George Floyd in the US, as major capitals across the EU were shut down by the protesters. Europeans have defied official bans against mass gatherings across the continent, as protests continue to erupt across major capitals from Paris to Berlin.”

The piece continued by listing some of the European nations where the “protests” took place.

“Thousands have taken to the streets in Europe to protest racism and police brutality, following the tragic US police killing of George Floyd, which has first triggered a wave of protests in America. Thousands poured in the streets in countries including France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Slovakia, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Sweden and others.”

Buy New $81.98(as of 04:50 EST – Details)It is deeply significant that the protests in Europe were organized by chapters of BLM. This should make us pause, given that BLM is an American organization which came into existence in 2013 in response to a shooting death of a black American teenager in Florida. Why, then, is this outfit organizing mass demonstrations across Europe? And even more importantly, why is Black Lives Matter trying to incite protests in countries that have virtually no black populations? In nations such Finland, Poland, Ireland or Slovakia – which are for the most part ethnically homogenous – racism has never been a significant problem.

So, again, the question forces itself: Why would BLM instigate protests in countries that do not really have racial issues? Whatever these protests were about, they could definitely not have been about racism.

This contradiction reveals what BLM is truly after: Black Lives Matter is a revolutionary outfit whose real agenda is the destabilization of western societies through upheaval and violence that invariably accompany its so-called “protests,” which it disingenuously portrays as events aimed at combating racial injustice.

Founded by militant revolutionaries, BLM is a seditious operation whose ultimate objective is the overthrow of the western socio-economic system. In a 2015 video, BLM co-founder and Board president Patrisse Cullors admitted that she and her colleagues in the leadership are “trained Marxists.” And these Marxists are clearly determined to implement their ideology in America and throughout the western world. This is what Cullors wrote in the conclusion of her recent missive to members of her organization:

“I know I can speak for most of us. We have fought like hell for our freedom and we will continue to fight like hell.”

Given the ideological disposition and attitude of the Black Lives Matter leadership, it was completely predictable that, as had happened in America, the BLM demonstrations in Europe would quickly take a violent turn.

“Black Lives Matter Protests Turn Violent Across Europe” announced a headline from VOA News June 13, barely two weeks after the George Floyd incident in Minneapolis. The article opened as follows:

“Riot police fired tear gas and charged at violent protesters at an anti-racism rally in Paris on Saturday…”

The piece then lists various European hotspots where violence took place. In the process we learn that even in normally calm Switzerland adherents of a “leftist group threw objects at police, as a wave of anger continued to sweep the world following the death of African American George Floyd.”

In the meantime, things were heating up in London, as conveyed by this headline from Express Online:

“London Protests Turn Violent As Police And Demonstrators
Clash Outside Downing Street.”

The first line of the article read:

“A BLACK LIVES MATTER protest in London has turned violent this afternoon after police and demonstrators clashed outside Downing Street.”

It then continued:

“While Boris Johnson was inside No. 10, leading the Government’s daily coronavirus press briefing, anger was mounting just hundreds of metres away. Officers and a number of demonstrators protesting against police violence following the death of George Floyd in the US have become engulfed in an angry confrontation with a number of objects being thrown.”

As is invariably the case anywhere BLM gets involved, the police came under attack. This is part and parcel of a deliberate strategy. Radical leftists can only take over societies if there is a breakdown of law and order. It is then that they can unleash their reign of terror and intimidate the terrified populations into submission. This is why BLM is such an enthusiastic supporter of the “defund the police” movement. “We call for a national defunding of police,” asserts a May 30th post on the BLM website. The title of the declaration which features this onerous demand is “#DefundThePolice.”

Here is another UK report from this summer:

“BLM (Black Lives Matter) protests were attended by thousands across the UK over the weekend, sparking some violent confrontations with police officers, branded “disgusting” by the Metropolitan Police Federation chairman, Ken Marsh.”

The article goes on to speak about Ken Marsh, who is one of Britain’s highest-ranking law enforcement officials, and who has apparently not yet completely succumbed to the virus of political correctness that has infected most of western institutions.

“Ken Marsh said he was ‘disgusted, sickened, and appalled’ by protester violence towards the police at BLM protests across the country. He told Talk Radio: ‘I’m not sure what my colleagues have done to warrant this abuse. It’s absolutely absurd and wholly unfair.’”

Once again, the protesters’ actions and statements were rife with contradictions. The most glaring among them was the fact that much of the violence and upheaval was unleashed in the name of George Floyd. Everywhere you looked you could see “protestors” carrying placards and banners with Floyd’s name and image. Consider this description of an incipient riot in London: “Crowds then moved towards No 10 after gathering this afternoon where they chanted Mr Floyd’s name.”

This prompts a series of questions:

Why would Europeans want to attack their own law enforcement for the death of a man that took place in a country thousands of miles away in an American state they could not even locate on the map?  What did the Swiss police have to do with Floyd’s demise and why did a leftist group shower Swiss cops with projectiles?

Why would Europeans blame their own national institutions for an incident that occurred on the other side of the Atlantic? Why did they direct their anger at their own government officials? What exactly was Boris Johnson’s connection the demise of George Floyd in Minnesota? How was the British prime minister responsible for the conduct of the officers from the Minneapolis police department? And yet the rioters demanded his resignation and the police had to reinforce security at his residence to shield him from physical danger.

On the face of it, this does not make logical sense. Not until, that is, we understand that what we saw was a manifestation of the left’s anti-western animus. What the left was attempting to do was to unsettle and destabilize western nations, and it used the cover of George Floyd to carry out its work of subversion.

The parallels on both sides of the Atlantic were striking and show that the behavior of the revolutionists on both sides of the Atlantic was not only coordinated but sprang from the same psychological root. As happened in the US, the “protestors” in Europe also embarked on a statue-slaying rampage. They first began with those for whom at least a tenuous connection could be made with slavery, but the pretense of racism quickly receded into the background, and soon no statue remained safe. Perhaps most notably, statues of Winston Churchill, the legendary prime minister who led Britain during World War II, came under assault. The situation became so critical that a deeply symbolic Churchill sculpture in the heart of London had to be boarded up to protect it from the BLM mob. One can clearly sense the delight of the Washington Post as it reported this development:

“LONDON — In the predawn hours Friday, workers boarded up an iconic Winston Churchill statue outside the Palace of Westminster to protect the public art work from further vandalism… Encased now in a large wooden box, painted a dull gray, the monument resembles a shipping crate, or an upright coffin — or the mysterious monolith from Stanley Kubrick’s science fiction masterpiece, ‘2001: A Space Odyssey.’”

For his part, Boris Johnson wrote on Twitter that it was “absurd and shameful” that Churchill’s monument was in danger of being wrecked. Johnson was, of course, correct, but it is also indicative of the west’s malaise that rather than taking tough measures against the perpetrators of these crimes leading politicians limit their actions to expressions of indignation on social media platforms.

But what so enraged the protestors about Winston Churchill? After all, Churchill was neither a slave owner nor did he advocate racial discrimination in Britain. Considered one of the greatest Englishmen who ever lived, he stands as one of the most beloved British politicians of all time. And deservedly so, since it was his exemplary courage and determination that pulled Britain through the dark days of the Second World War. Yet it is precisely there, at the point of his greatest achievement, that we find the explanation for the seemingly senseless attacks again him. Even though most normal people were genuinely shocked and perplexed by this, from the vantage point of the west-hating left the attacks made complete sense. By his fortitude and will, Winston Churchill was instrumental in helping to save Western civilization: first in the face of the evil Nazis and then by taking a strong stand against the equally depraved Soviets. That’s why the left hates him so.

The riots that began in the spring of 2020 gave us a unique opportunity to observe the left acting out its true nature. The protests that we witnessed in America and other western countries had nothing to do with racism, because the racism they claimed to oppose simply does not exist. A false cause par excellence, racism merely served as a cover under which to destabilize and hopefully – from the left’s point of view – topple western societies.

Dramatic and destabilizing eruptions such as we have seen this year across the western world usually occur in weakened civilizations that are nearing the end of their lifecycle. The end, however, is not inevitable. There have been cases in history where crisis-ridden, foundering civilizations reversed course to save themselves and continued to flourish for a long time yet. Rome, for example, went through a deep civilizational crisis in the second half of the first century AD. At that difficult time a selfless, patriotic man by the name of Vespasian, a commoner by birth, rose to the top and by his wisdom and courage extended the lease on life of that great civilization from whose achievements we still benefit today.

It is imperative that we fully grasp the meaning of this year’s dramatic events and summon the wisdom to do what needs to be done to save ourselves. The question is: Will we find the courage to push back against the west-hating left or will we stand by as it continues to ply its work of destruction?

Our destiny and the fate of our civilization is in our hands. It is truly for such a time as this that we have been born. Which way will we go?

New Laws Mean New Sanctions


Rejecting God’s laws and their moral implications does not mean that laws and their moral implications are done away with. With the rejection of God’s commandments new commandments replace the old and a new set of sanctions that go along with them. The more things change, the more things stay the same but with new masters and a different whip. These new laws and sanctions are implemented and enforced by the State. We see this in the new commandment forced into law by the Supreme Court that states, “Thou shalt not deny homosexuals the right to marry.” It’s been left up to the states and the courts to impose sanctions. By what standard?

The following question was asked of me by a university student working on a research paper:

I understand that American Vision is fearful of LGBTQ+ citizens sharing their values with a broader audience. With regards to LGBTQ+ rights, what do you believe is the biggest threat to restoring America to its Biblical Foundation?

It’s not only about LGBT+ individuals sharing their values with a broader audience; it’s about the government and its courts codifying specific types of sexual behavior into law with no ultimate foundational standard from which to appeal for legitimacy. It all comes down to defining “sex,” “gender,” and “marriage.” Who defines these terms, and on what basis are people who engage in defined sexual acts given legitimacy because of a sex act? A person’s race or ethnicity is not a behavior. The type of sex a person engages in does not elevate that person’s legal and personhood status the way race and ethnicity do. There are only two sexes. How do we know this? Because God designed them that way—“male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27)—and that created design is reinforced empirically by the anatomy of each sex and the ability to procreate.

Libertines and their ideological compatriots make the individual their god. Abortion, in the name of “personal freedom” and “individual choice,” is its promethean statement of personal sovereignty and god-like decision making. Homosexual journalists abhor ideological competition. In a panel featuring top news executives in 2000, Michael Bradbury, managing editor of the Seattle Gay News, asks, “We have a tendency to always seek an opposing point of view for gay and lesbian civil rights issues…. how does the mainstream press justify that?” Moderator and CBS correspondent Jeffrey Kofman added: “The argument [is]: Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don’t do that with Jews, blacks, et cetera?” The reason is a person’s color or ethnicity are not behaviors. These homosexual “journalists” want an ideological jihad on contrary opinion concerning their “sacred” lifestyle choice.

The strategy is clear: If the media and the public they instruct can be convinced that opposing gay marriage, gay adoption, gay Boy Scout leaders and so forth, is no different from racism or anti-Semitism, those who hold such beliefs can safely be ignored. ((Rod Dreher, “Is WNBC 4 or Against Balance on Gay Issues?,” New York Post (September 14, 2000).))

Anyone who disagrees with the new sanctioned paradigm will be shouted down, forced out of long-held journalistic and educational positions, or run out of town. Many college campuses are filled with professors and procedures that denounce contrary opinions as an affront to all that’s liberally holy.

It’s not only homosexuality. The transgendered worldview is now beyond criticism. The department chain Target attempted to remove a book critical of transgenderism because of a single complaint.

The Twitter account for Target stores says the $80 billion corporation will stop selling a book about trangenderism’s harmful impact on young girls, following a complaint from a single Twitter account.

“Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. We have removed this book from our assortment,” the Target tweet said after an activist complained that Target is selling the book, authored by Abigail Shrier.

“ just made my book disappear,” Shrier responded. “Does it bother anyone that Woke activists and spineless corporations now determine what Americans are allowed to read?”

The book, titled Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, helps to explain how a wave of young girls are nudged and pushed into declaring they want to take life-altering drugs, adopt an opposite-sex identity, and undergo irreversible surgery. 

It was only after the public objected to the flagrant dismissal of objective criticism that Target relented and is now carrying the book. In the future, I suspect Target will never offer anything like I__rreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. The dissenters were placated for the moment to avoid more untold bad publicity. But mark my words, Target will never let it happen again. The pro-homosexual lobby will make certain of it.

Attempts to cancel the book have been going on since the book was published. For example, Amazon will not permit ads for the book while permitting ads for books “that celebrate the medical transition of teen girls who suddenly decide they’re trans.”

Those found guilty of hate speech in Norway will “face a fine or up to a year in prison for private remarks, and a maximum of three years for public comments.” Who gets to define “hate speech”? The State. The claim is being made that there’s been an “increase” in “hate speech.” Madeleine Kearns of National Review explained why:

“We’re forever hearing about this supposed rise in ‘LGBTQ+ hate crimes,’ and it’s no wonder, really—given that the definition of what constitutes a ‘hate crime’ keeps being expanded. The latest example is Norway, which has just amended its penal code, first passed in 1981, to outlaw even ‘private remarks’ that the ruling class considers offensive,” she wrote.

“LGBTQ+ ideology has been mainstreamed in every sphere of life imaginable. Still, radical gender activists will not be at rest until every private citizen repudiates biological truth and relinquishes his every doubt about their dogma.” (WND)

Homosexuality is defined by what kind of sex a person engages in and with whom. These actions do not make those who engage in sex with people of the same sex a new civil rights category any more than someone who commits adultery is given a newly defined legal status because of their chosen sexual behavior.

Transgenderism is equally spurious morally and medically. But given the fact that homo sapiens are evolved material beings with no soul or moral compass, anything goes since there is no longer a secure definition of what marks a person a male or female. If morality is fluid, then everything else is equally fluid. The only thing that is not fluid is the empowerment of the State to enforce hate speech, that is, anyone who questions the new gender norms. What the State gives it can take away. It’s been done with slaves and unborn babies. Redefinition is now the prerogative of the State enforced by law and negative sanctions.

Transgenderism is a legal and biological fiction. It is anti-science. But it’s more than this. We are back to asking by what authority are these new laws created. By what standard? Who says?

Boys are boys and girls are girls. A person identifying as one or the other does not make their beliefs a reality. Look what such nonsense is doing to women’s sports. It took a long time for women to achieve equity in sports. Now boys and men come along who “identify” as girls and women and take top spots in races and team play. It’s insane. Irrational. Immoral. Girls are afraid to say anything because they will be retaliated against, so they endure the irrationalism and unfairness.

Why can’t a 40-year-old male who identifies as a high school girl play on a girls’ basketball team and dress in the girls’ locker room? Where does the “identify as” stop? Nearly all the transgenderism in sports is a one-way street. It’s almost always boys and men who identify as girls or women.

Sexual behavior cannot be compared to the struggle of blacks to secure full civil rights. General Colin Powell, who is black, at one time did not see any relationship between homosexual rights and civil rights:

Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. ((General Colin Powell, letter to Rep. Patricia Shroeder (May 8, 1992). Cited in John W. Whitehead, Religious Apartheid: The Separation of Religion from American Public Life (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994), 126.))

Powell has since changed his position. He has succumbed to the pressure.

The Bible has always been used to combat social injustice. Slavery was denounced as a violation of the moral and civil laws of God outlined in the Bible. ((George Bourne, The Book and Slavery Irreconcilable (Philadelphia, PA: J.M. Sanderson, 1816).))

The Ten Commandments in American Law


The following is the second question I was asked by a journalism and political science major at a major university for a research paper (you can read my answer to the first question here):

How did American Vision feel about former Alabama Judge Roy Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments at the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery in 2003? Did this display align with American Vision’s goal to restore America to its Biblical Foundation? What is American Vision’s response to those who believe that this display is a political overreach?

When Judge Roy Moore ran for the office of chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he made a pledge to restore America’s moral foundation. He began to deliver on his promise when he placed a 5,280-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state Judicial Department. The monument also included the phrase from the Declaration of Independence, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” the national Motto, “In God We Trust,” the Pledge of Allegiance, “One Nation Under God,” and the Judicial Oath “So Help Me God.” During the brief ceremony dedicating the monument, Judge Moore made these summary comments: “May this day mark the beginning of the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and return to the knowledge of God in our land.” ((Stan Bailey, “Moore puts Commandments monument in court building,” Birmingham News (August 8, 2001), 1A.))

Why was Alabama singled out when Pennsylvania has had a display of the Ten Commandments in its State Supreme Court building since 1927? The sixteen murals were conceived and painted by Violet Oakley. They are massive, most measuring 10′ by 8′, thus dwarfing Judge Roy Moore’s granite monument. The mural series is titled “Divine Law,” as in God and the Law. Plate V is “The Decalogue … the Hebrew Idea of Revealed Law.” It shows the Ten Commandments being chiseled in stone. Below the striking image, the commandments are written out for everyone to see and read.

“The Decalogue … the Hebrew Idea of Revealed Law.”

Plate VI shows Jesus delivering “The Beatitudes.” It’s described as the “Christian Idea of Revealed Law.” Like the Ten Commandments’ mural, the Beatitudes are written out and identified as coming from the Bible.

Plates VIII and X summarize the philosophy of the English Jurist William Blackstone. Plate X (below) includes the often-quoted summary of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England:

William Blackstone on the Law

This Law of Nature dictated by God Himself is superior to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original. Upon these two foundations the Law of Nature and the Law of Revelation depend all human Law…. Human laws are only declaratory of and act in subordination to Divine Law.

Plate XV is the panel of “Christ and Disarmament … International Law.”

Once again, the Bible is quoted, and Jesus Christ is shown walking on the stormy seas of international conflict while warships sink around Him. “It depicts Oakley’s vision of what would occur if all nations
accepted one code of law.” Oakley’s view was that the “one code of law” was Divine Law.

If the Alabama Ten Commandment monument was a violation of the Constitution, then the murals that adorn the walls of Pennsylvania’ s State Supreme Court building are also in violation.

President Harry S. Truman voiced the common and prevailing sentiment of his day:

The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we comprehend that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody. ((Harry S. Truman, Harry S. Truman: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President—January 1 to December 31, 1950 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1965), 197.))

As Chief Justice Warren Burger noted in his majority opinion of Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court Chamber where judicial cases related to religion are “heard is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments.” ((U.S. Supreme Court Lynch v. Donnelley, 465 U.S. 668 (decided March 5, 1984), II.C.))

In addition to the Supreme Court, state courtrooms and capitols across our land have housed similar displays for decades without any legal challenges or constitutional prohibitions: The Texas State Capitol, the chambers of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and scores of other legislatures, courthouses, and other public buildings. “In fact, the Ten Commandments are more easily found in America’s government buildings than in her religious buildings, thus demonstrating the understanding by generations of Americans from coast to coast that the Ten Commandments formed the basis of America’s civil laws.” ((David Barton, “The Ten Commandments: A Part of America’s Legal System for Almost 400 years!,” Prepared and presented in response to multiple ACLU lawsuits against public displays of the Ten Commandments, United States District Court, Eastern District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, London Division (March 2001).))

In addition to hundreds of displays, the Constitution itself recognizes one of the most religiously specific of the Ten Commandments. In Article I, section 7 of the Constitution, Sunday is set aside as a day of rest for the President, a direct reference to the fourth commandment:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

In addition to the fourth commandment being recognized in the body of the Constitution, the statute books of the states include prohibitions against blasphemy (third), dishonoring parents (fifth), murder (sixth), adultery (seventh), theft (eighth), and perjury (ninth). The fact that the Constitution ends with “in the year of our Lord” reflects the truth of the First Commandment: “I am the LORD your God…. You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:2–3). The Ten Commandments, from top to bottom, summarize the nature and purpose of law in America by reminding us that neither we nor civil government is god.

Some claim that the first table of the commandments consists of religious edicts unnecessary for laws that are deemed to be self-evident moral laws. In a 1922 Iowa Supreme Court decision declared otherwise:

The observance of Sunday is one of our established customs. It has come down to us from the same Decalogue that prohibited murder, adultery, perjury, and theft. It is more ancient than our common law or our form of government. It is recognized by Constitutions and legislative enactments, both State and federal. On this day Legislatures adjourn, courts cease to function, business is suspended, and nation-wide our citizens cease from labor. The observance of the Sabbath is regarded as essential to the proper upbuilding of the mental and physical, as well as the moral, life of a great people. Laws and ordinances respecting its observance are clearly within the genius of our institutions and the spirit of our national life. The ordinance in question is not inconsistent with the laws of the state, nor is it an unreasonable regulation. It is, therefore, valid. ((City of Ames [Iowa] v. Gerbracht, 189 N.W. 729, 733 (1922).))

Without the declaration of the first two commandments, there can’t be any ultimate justification of the commandments that following, including those against murder (sixth), theft (eighth), and perjury (ninth). There are no moral absolutes given the operating assumptions of materialists who advocate a something from nothing origin of life and survival of the fittest worldview.

God died in the nineteenth century and Nietzsche danced on his grave. The foundation of the external moral law was destroyed and, in its place, was a vacuum, soon gleefully filled by the narcotics of Nazism and Communism. It may not be possible to say that the death of God led directly to the death ovens; but equally, nobody can ignore the fact that the cruelest era in history was also the first to deny the existence of an external moral force. ((Bryan Appleyard, review of Jonathan Glover, Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century in The Sunday Times (December 1999). Quoted in Vaughan Roberts, God’s Big Design: Life as he Intends it to Be (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 27.))

If this is true, “can we stop the long nightmare of the twentieth century from spilling over into the twenty-first?” We cannot live within the fluid boundaries of legal relativism. There must be a definitive and final moral legal standard of appeal to justify moral decisions at the personal and governmental levels. If not, then one judge’s opinion is as good (or as bad) as another.

The Ten Commandments has been that fixed summary standard in America since its founding. As Nightline host Ted Koppel stated in a 1987 commencement address at Duke University, “What Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions. They are commandments. Are, not were. The sheer brilliance of the Ten Commandments is that they codify in a handful of words acceptable human behavior, not just for then or now, but for all time. Language evolves. Power shifts from one nation to another. Messages are transmitted with the speed of light. Man erases one frontier after another. And yet we and our behavior and the commandments governing that behavior remain the same.” ((Ted Koppel, The Last Word, Commencement Address at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (May 10, 1987). Quoted in Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: The Free Press, 1989), 164.Ted Koppel, The Last Word, Commencement Address at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (May 10, 1987). Quoted in Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: The Free Press, 1989), 164.))

The New Control Word is ‘Health’

Sep 25, 2020 by Gary DeMar

There are different ways to control people. Rarely do you find a tyrant begin by lining up people in front of a ditch and executing them. Many small steps led to the final solution. At first, the Jews were denigrated by being forced to wear a badge that identified them as Jews. Then they were publicly maligned:

Nazi propagandists exploited pre-existing images and stereotypes to give a false portrayal of Jews. In this false view, Jews were an “alien race” that fed off the host nation, poisoned its culture, seized its economy, and enslaved its workers and farmers… Germans viewed as genetically inferior and harmful to “national health,” such as people with mental illness and intellectual or physical disabilities [were to be eliminated].

For the Nazis, it was all about “national health.” Jews were compared to rats that carry contagious diseases. What do you do with rats? Exterminate them!

Presently in the United States, physical health is being used as a control agent. Long before the news hit about a virus that originated in China, government officials were passing laws to control our health.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg implemented a plan to keep large sugary drinks out of restaurants and other eateries. Sounds harmless. Fortunately, a state appeals court ruled that Bloomberg “had overstepped his authority in trying to impose the ban.”


Government 101: The Politics of Authority

Government 101 is deep-dive into government and authority. The course material spans centuries and investigates many forms of government. Your understanding of what it means to be “under authority,” will be shifted and your view of ruling and rulers will be enriched. You will come to see the inescapable nature of government, and how man tends to impose authority from the top-down while God’s governmental structure is bottom-up.

Buy Now


Even so, government officials keep trying. (This is why the courts are so important and Trump’s re-election is crucial.)

The latest example of a government using the health argument to control people is coming from Berkeley, California, once the home of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. See if you can spot the sinister detail in the new law:

Berkeley is gearing up to become the first city in the nation to ban junk food from the checkout line in grocery stores. In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, the Berkeley City Council passed the “healthy checkout” ordinance.

Come March 2021, when the measure is set to take effect, large grocery stores in the California city will be prohibited from selling food and beverages deemed unhealthy in a 3-foot radius from the checkout. “It’s not really a ban, it’s a nudge,” co-sponsor of the ordinance Councilmember Kate Harrison told FOX Business. “What we have discovered is that this law enforces good behavioral economics and facilitates better choices.”

That last line should send shivers up and down your spine. Do you think the food Nazis in Berkeley will stop with food if they can pass a law that “enforces good behavioral economics and facilitates better choices”? (Fox Business)

Who will ultimately determine what’s “good behavioral economics”? If this can be done with food, then what’s to stop politicians from implementing a system of governance over beliefs and ideologies? Actually, they are already doing this. What we are seeing on university campuses is a curriculum designed to more than “nudge” students to adopt unquestioned ideologies.

Anyone who questions, for example, the operating assumptions of the Marxist ideology of Black Lives Matter, homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion will rarely if ever secure a teaching position in today’s universities. If an existing professor tweets a contrary opinion on these and other sacrosanct dogmas, he or she will be immediately vilified as something worse than vermin.

Forcing people to wear masks during outdoor gatherings in the name of health when there is no health emergency is a current example. The Mayor of Moscow, Idaho, and the City Council ordered a new mask mandate that continues into January 2021, and there’s no guarantee it will be lifted then. Remember when we were told that we needed two weeks to “flatten the curve”?

When a church group decided to defy the draconian and arbitrary order, those gathered received citations and three people were arrested and taken away in handcuffs.

And just to put an exclamation point on the preposterous frivolousness of all this, the very same deputies who arrested [Gabe] Rench [of Cross Politic] for not wearing a mask were seen by him after his two-hour stint in jail hanging out in the police station — with no concern for social distancing and not a mask worn in sight. (Steve Deace)

Then there’s the incident of a woman with family members not wearing a mask watching her middle school son play football in an outdoor stadium with a sparse crowd who was assaulted, tased, and handcuffed by a very large policeman and hauled off under the control of two police officers, one a woman who was not wearing a mask!

She had every right not to wear a mask since Ohio law states that a person does not have to wear a mask if you are sitting with family members and can maintain six-foot social distance from people who are not household members. The video shows she was complying.

So, what starts with “we’re only interested in your health” becomes comply or you will be arrested and taken to jail in handcuffs.

Secular Nationalism is all the Rage

By Gary DeMar, 14th September, 2020

On September 10, I attended and participated in the “‘Get Louder’ Faith Summit: Fighting for the Soul of the Nation” at Liberty University with Mike Huckabee, Eric Metaxas, Mark David Hall, Jay Reynolds, Tom Ascol, Rod Martin, Ralph Reed, Virgil Walker, Aubrey Shines, Charlie Kirk, former U.S. Rep. Dave Brat, Kim Klacik, Jenna Ellis, Kathy Barnette, and many others.

The event was a great success because it ticked off a lot of people, in particular Messiah College historian John Fea who live-tweeted much of the event. Then there was this from Right Wing Watch:

Liberty University’s Falkirk Center held “Get Louder,” a day-long “faith summit” Thursday that included Christian Reconstructionist Gary DeMar among its speakers. DeMar’s presence at “Get Louder” reflects the widespread influence of Christian Reconstructionism and ​contemporary religious-right leaders’ embrace of Christian nationalism.

RWW was nice enough to include a screen shot from the panel discussion I participated in that was led by Eric Metaxas.

Gary DeMar on Panel Discussion at Faith Summit
with Eric Metaxas, Mark David Hall, and Jay Reynolds

If it were only so that the principles of Christian Reconstruction were influentical, except the “Christian nationalism” dig since I don’t know a single person who ever describes Christian involvement in every area of life in such a way. The kingdom of God is not defined by national borders. The United States is not the kingdom of God, but it is bound by God’s law as it applies to the civil magistrate. This is true for all nations.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance
 (Psalm 33:12).

The goal of Christian involvement in the civil sphere is to limit the power and authority of civil magistrates. Critics of Christian involvement want to empower the State to dictate and enforce a Secular Nationalism, something we are seeing in states like California, New York, and elsewhere.

For example, in addition to other secular initiatives, California’s legislature passed SB 145, a bill that is being sold as a way to give “judges discretion in cases of voluntary anal and oral sex between a teenager age 14 and 17 and an adult no more than 10 years older.” How many of you remember that a seemingly anti-abortion law was proposed and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan that included an exception for the “mental health of the mother.”

This was a huge loophole that remains with us today. All a woman had to do to get a legal abortion was declare that going through with the pregnancy would result in her diminished mental health. New York, New Jersey, and Virginia have passed pro-abortion legislation that permits a woman to kill her unborn baby up until birth and in some cases even after.

Men who identify as women are beginning to dominate women’s sports. Try to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding or photograph a same-sex wedding. Heavy fines will greet you with full force. The Secular Nationalists are against freedom of expression and deny simple biology and anatomy, and if you don’t agree with their insanity, you are a bigot, and this coming from those who are all about science.

Consider how the state of California has treated churches by threatening them with massive fines and legal expenses if they open their churches. Pastor John MacArthur is standing up to Secular Nationalism.

The participants at the Summit aren’t looking to swap power and control with those now ruling and ruining our nation. We aren’t seeking power and authority over other people. Personally, I am not working to take over public education and impose my religious beliefs of other people’s children. (That’s what Secular Nationalists are doing.) I want it out of the hands of civil governors and the bureaucrats.

Since the unborn child is a human being, and human beings are persons, therefore, killing a human being is murder. It’s no wonder that the unborn baby must be redefined like black people and Jews were redefined. Modern-day Secular Nationalists have a long history where laws are based on an established elite that redefines everything in terms of human autonomy. In fact, if the Bible had been followed instead of some naturalistic premise based on Aristotelianism in the West where some people are by nature slaves, there never would have been slavery since it’s a form of “manstealing” (Ex. 21:16).

One of my special interests is eschatology. The Summit hardly if ever mentioned that we are living in the “end times” or the “last days. The irony is that the event was held in a building built with Left Behind money. The thing of it is Tim LaHaye would have agreed with nearly everything said at the Summit, although he might not have been thrilled that I was asked to be a participant since I wrote the book Left Behind: Separating Fact from Fiction, critical of the Left Behind theology.

The Room Where the Faith Summit was Held

The pressure secularists are putting on Christians is forcing them to pick sides. We are seeing some bad reasoning from Christians who should know better. Some are calling on Christians to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrats, even though it is the Party of wholesale abortion, failed economic policies, sanctioning same-sex everything that will be forced on their children and grandchildren.

What they are voting for is a form of Secular Nationalism.

Some Dangerous Voting Trends Among Christians

Sep 11, 2020 by Gary DeMar

The 2020 election has brought forth a number of cantankerous Christian groupings when it comes to voting patterns. Some of these have a longer history. The first group contends that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties. It’s pretty clear that in 2020 there is more than a dime’s worth of difference even though the Republican Party has a lot of flaws. Republicans have squandered a lot of political capital when they had the presidency under George W. Bush and a majority in the House and Senate. It also didn’t help that GWB started an immoral and unconstitutional war with Iraq.

The second group consists of those who claim they can’t vote for the lesser of two evils. This means they couldn’t vote for anyone except for Jesus since there is no candidate who is without some evil. No candidate is perfect. Every vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils. To vote for the lesser of two evils is to vote for less evil. Not to vote for the lesser of two evils is to make it easier for the greater evil to win.

The third group is made up of people who are going to vote for a third-party candidate who is going to lose. Ross Perot lost as a third-party candidate in the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. Perot received more than 19 million votes but did not receive a single electoral vote. As a result, Bill Clinton became President and his wife became a political nuisance.

The new group contends that it’s best to vote for the greater evil. In this case, Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. This is mind boggling. It is worse than irrational; it is immoral. The following article by Dr. Michael S. Beates,a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America that was originally published as “My Thoughts on ‘Christians for Biden’” in the Aguila Report.


On several occasions recently, I have encountered stalwart Christians who have posted links to stories covering other Christians (in a positive manner) who announce their intention to vote for Joe Biden. The conversation usually goes in three directions.

First, for example, Christianity Today recently reported on Richard Mouw, respected leader and former president at Fuller Seminary saying he “plans to vote for Biden, despite some qualms about the Democratic Party’s positions on abortion and religious liberty.”

When I read this, I replied to the post saying, “Qualms? QUALMS? Lord have mercy! Vote for Beelzebub for Pete’s sake. If you vote with the darkness of abortion, all your other virtuous commitments to justice are so much hot air. Such foolishness!”

The respected Christian brother posting the link said I was missing the point and that we all have to choose our qualms (true enough in a fallen world). He went on to say that President Trump has so egregiously transgressed the commandment against bearing false witness, that he, too (it seemed), must vote against Trump.

I do not have a record of my rejoinder to his comment because after I posted another response, he blocked me from his page. Yes, I was “canceled” because I showed so little patience with people who would vote for candidates who advocate the killing of unborn human beings (100% of the time, right up to birth). In fact, six months ago, only three Democrats had the moral courage to vote in the affirmative for cloture on the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” ― those against included 42 Democrats and 2 Independents. This is a political movement that cannot even bring itself to direct medical professionals to save the life of child who survives an attempted abortion. Let that sink in . . . they would rather the medical professional let the baby die ― essentially commit infanticide in a sterile back room by state decree in order to protect “reproductive choice.”

And Christian leaders have “qualms” about this stance?

Then there’s a Billy Graham granddaughter with a winsome piece in USA Today about how awful Trump is toward women and how those who support him are “spitting on the legacy” of Billy Graham (ouch!). Though she never clearly says in this opinion piece what her recommended alternative is, she does so in her Twitter account here: she will happily vote for Biden. So, again, due to Trump’s bad behavior, she is willing to throw her support behind those who advocate for and support those involved in the killing of unborn children. Makes. No. Sense.

One man on that comment stream said the following to me:

“But like many who are pro-life until birth you support a man who violated almost every commandment of the ten and never attends church or prays for forgiveness over a man who has spent his life trying to help the downtrodden, attends church weekly and constantly asks for forgiveness. You and Trump are a total contradiction.”

I have tried to reason with some followers of Jesus about what I call the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the law. Some will tell me we simply cannot vote for Trump due to his breaking so many commandments. Yes, every sin is an act of cosmic treason against a holy God (the vertical dimension of the law). And all sin deserves eternal punishment (regardless of how often we go to church). But we also must realize that while it is a sin to insult a man or even wish him dead, it is far worse (with respect to the horizontal dimension of the law) to plunge a knife in his chest and end his existential life. Thus, I gladly admit to Trump’s terrible behavior; but he is not advocating killing unborn babies made in God’s image.

Second, in another story, we read about an evangelical who is directing Biden’s “national faith engagement.” For this Moody Bible Institute graduate, “The key religious issue of this election is systemic racism.” My initial response to the posting was to say, “Sorry, can’t do a party whose primary commitment is abortion of black and disabled children. People (I’ll even say ‘believers’) who claim to be ‘pro-life Biden supporters’ are holding two completely contradictory ideas in their heads simultaneously. SMH”

Several dozen responses followed including the now predictable charge that I am merely “pro-birth” and I don’t care about the babies once they are born, so shame on me. I usually don’t dignify the charge with a response. I could talk about my four adopted black children (and several others who call me “papa”) and how my wife and I have been pro-life 24/7/365 for several decades now; or how my circle of friends have adopted scores of children as an outgrowth of our pro-life convictions. “Pro-birth”?  Please!

I usually simply say, “Being pro-life is certainly more than being ‘pro-birth’ of course, but it is certainly not less than being pro-birth!”

Most of my friendly (and some not so friendly) opponents in such debates say, “But Trump is so profane, nasty, adulterous, boorish, rude, and mean.” All true (and we could add a few more accurate epithets). I sometimes tell people that I preferred about 16 other candidates to Donald Trump, and I resigned my Republican party affiliation four years ago upon his nomination.

But ― let me be clear ― I will always prefer a mean, lying, adulterer over a nice, kind, grandfatherly gentleman who advocates death to unborn children through a racist agency spear-heading a holocaust on minorities. Period.

I have had other well-intentioned believers respond with “But Planned Parenthood does good things; and I don’t know any Democrats who advocate abortion up until birth ― it’s only to the point of viability.” Sigh …. It seems some people must be living in a cave or simply are not listening. The New York Times (last year during Democrat candidate debates) surveyed candidates regarding limits on abortion. Only one of the 15 or so respondents advocated limits.  Just ONE! Other published results from NPR or WaPo show a more nuanced look at the issue, but still half of all candidates said, “No limits what so ever” while others said, “Stick with Row v. Wade limits” (which essentially means, “It’s a wild card depending on interpretation and application”).

I could have added: Let’s be honest ― clearly the most egregious example of systemic racism is the work of Planned Parenthood decimating Black families through abortion for decades. I have a particular antipathy for Planned Parenthood and thus for people who would do anything in any manner to help the organization survive and grow. Counselors at Planned Parenthood would have advocated for abortion for at least half of my eight children. When I see followers of Jesus work for the success of a party that is 100% behind Planned Parenthood, . . . I have to give the benefit of the doubt that they have simply been blinded to Planned Parenthood’s clear and unambiguous racist history and continuing racist practices affecting black and other minority communities.

Third, there are those who say, “at least vote third party, keep your conscience clean; by voting for Trump, you endorse all his bad behavior.” I could answer by saying that when a Christian votes for Biden he or she is endorsing abortion, … but I won’t say that. I don’t believe that about brothers and sisters in Christ, nor should they believe I endorse bad behavior from Trump. I respond with two points:

First, I believe a vote of any candidate is never necessarily an endorsement of that person’s morality.  If it were, I could never vote for anyone. We have all known Trump’s severe moral deficiencies for years (imagine what we still don’t know!). Politics is a “city of man” venture. We live in a fallen world. I believe we are all far worse than we care to believe, and certainly worse than we want publicized. We are painfully aware of everyone’s faults, sins, and “me-too” moments now (as a side note, I believe this tendency is driving good people away from public service since “Who wants everything bad you’ve ever done dredged up and hung out for public opprobrium?”). So I often say politics and Polish sausage are alike in so far as the process of making each product may create nausea and seem absolutely repulsive; but one hopes the end product of each may be something that “tastes good.” I am voting for a world-view and a philosophy of government, not for any particular man or woman.

But second, until a viable third party rises, a “protest vote” or a “stay at home no-vote” actually helps the other side whose world-view commitment is solidly pro-abortion. Such a protest or third-party vote is fine in places like New York or California where the result is so lop-sided a conservative vote does not matter. In such cases, keep your conscience clear if you must. But in closely contested states like Florida, I sincerely believe we do not have that option. The pro-abortion party will gratefully cheer on every conservative pro-life third-party vote or no-vote since it essentially becomes a vote for them. Politics is often necessarily a “lesser of two evils” situation, and never more so (in my opinion) than in 2016 and 2020.  Again, a city of man issue.

Let me be clear again: I yearn to see justice accomplished and equity established. I long to see more fair housing and less bad policing. We all want criminal justice reform and peace in our cities. But if you’re dead, none of these social justice goals matter. For those image bearers who don’t survive birth, for those who die by abortion, it’s all moot.

We must begin by getting “Life” right. Everything else follows. Abortion is a grisly, sickening, grotesquely dark business. The current VP candidate for the Democrat party prosecuted a man who exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal selling of human fetal body parts. But the criminals marketing in human flesh still operate with impunity as they perfect methods of abortion that allow them to harvest more organs for yet more profit.

I cannot see, frankly, how any follower of Jesus can throw their lot in with such modern-day Phoenicians engaged in child sacrifice for the sake of economic gain. “Reproductive choice” has become god for many. The abortion business (and advocating for it in any fashion) is far, far, far worse that calling someone names, mocking a disabled man, committing adultery, lying, cheating on taxes, or whatever you wish to add to Trump’s list of sin.

Finally I must add one more: a pastor in Georgia running for office was asked about abortion (or “reproductive choice.” Notice: in his responses, he never musters enough courage to say the word abortion!  Rather, he uses seven or eight euphemistic terms to weasel around the grisly, racist, ugly truth behind abortion. Again, I am left shaking my head in disbelief. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood has endorsed his campaign for office.

May God grant mercy on us all as we seek to follow Him in our confused and ever-darkening culture so focused on death for convenience and economic security. I, for one, want to see abortion ended and I cannot ― ever ― support a candidate of any party who works for abortion’s flourishing and continuation in our land.

Eyewitness to the Trial and Agony of Julian Assange

October 3rd, 2020

John Pilger has watched Julian Assange’s extradition trial from the public gallery at London’s Old Bailey. He spoke with Timothy Erik Ström of Arena magazine, Australia:

Q: Having watched Julian Assange’s trial first-hand, can you describe the prevailing atmosphere in the court?

The prevailing atmosphere has been shocking. I say that without hesitation; I have sat in many courts and seldom known such a corruption of due process; this is due revenge. Putting aside the ritual associated with ‘British justice’, at times it has been evocative of a Stalinist show trial. One difference is that in the show trials, the defendant stood in the court proper. In the Assange trial, the defendant was caged behind thick glass, and had to crawl on his knees to a slit in the glass, overseen by his guard, to make contact with his lawyers. His message, whispered barely audibly through face masks, WAS then passed by post-it the length of the court to where his barristers were arguing the case against his extradition to an American hellhole.

Consider this daily routine of Julian Assange, an Australian on trial for truth-telling journalism. He was woken at five o’clock in his cell at Belmarsh prison in the bleak southern sprawl of London. The first time I saw Julian in Belmarsh, having passed through half an hour of ‘security’ checks, including a dog’s snout in my rear, I found a painfully thin figure sitting alone wearing a yellow armband. He had lost more than 10 kilos in a matter of months; his arms had no muscle. His first words were: ‘I think I am losing my mind’.

I tried to assure him he wasn’t. His resilience and courage are formidable, but there is a limit. That was more than a year ago. In the past three weeks, in the pre-dawn, he was strip-searched, shackled, and prepared for transport to the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, in a truck that his partner, Stella Moris, described as an upended coffin. It had one small window; he had to stand precariously to look out. The truck and its guards were operated by Serco, one of many politically connected companies that run much of Boris Johnson’s Britain.

The journey to the Old Bailey took at least an hour and a half. That’s a minimum of three hours being jolted through snail-like traffic every day. He was led into his narrow cage at the back of the court, then look up, blinking, trying to make out faces in the public gallery through the reflection of the glass. He saw the courtly figure of his dad, John Shipton, and me, and our fists went up. Through the glass, he reached out to touch fingers with Stella, who is a lawyer and seated in the body of the court.

We were here for the ultimate of what the philosopher Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle: a man fighting for his life. Yet his crime is to have performed an epic public service: revealing that which we have a right to know: the lies of our governments and the crimes they commit in our name. His creation of WikiLeaks and its failsafe protection of sources revolutionised journalism, restoring it to the vision of its idealists. Edmund Burke’s notion of free journalism as a fourth estate is now a fifth estate that shines a light on those who diminish the very meaning of democracy with their criminal secrecy. That’s why his punishment is so extreme.

The sheer bias in the courts I have sat in this year and last year, with Julian in the dock, blight any notion of British justice. When thuggish police dragged him from his asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy – look closely at the photo and you’ll see he is clutching a Gore Vidal book; Assange has a political humour similar to Vidal’s – a judge gave him an outrageous 50-week sentence in a maximum-security prison for mere bail infringement.

For months, he was denied exercise and held in solitary confinement disguised as ‘health care’. He once told me he strode the length of his cell, back and forth, back and forth, for his own half-marathon. In the next cell, the occupant screamed through the night. At first he was denied his reading glasses, left behind in the embassy brutality. He was denied the legal documents with which to prepare his case, and access to the prison library and the use of a basic laptop. Books sent to him by a friend, the journalist Charles Glass, himself a survivor of hostage-taking in Beirut, were returned. He could not call his American lawyers. He has been constantly medicated by the prison authorities. When I asked him what they were giving him, he couldn’t say. The governor of Belmarsh has been awarded the Order of the British Empire.

At the Old Bailey, one of the expert medical witnesses, Dr Kate Humphrey, a clinical neuropsychologist at Imperial College, London, described the damage: Julian’s intellect had gone from ‘in the superior, or more likely very superior range’ to ‘significantly below’ this optimal level, to the point where he was struggling to absorb information and ‘perform in the low average range’.

This is what the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, calls ‘psychological torture’, the result of a gang-like ‘mobbing’ by governments and their media shills. Some of the expert medical evidence is so shocking I have no intention of repeating it here. Suffice to say that Assange is diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome and, according to Professor Michael Kopelman, one of the world’s leading neuropsychiatrists, he suffers from ‘suicidal preoccupations’ and is likely to find a way to take his life if he is extradited to America.

James Lewis QC, America’s British prosecutor, spent the best part of his cross-examination of Professor Kopelman dismissing mental illness and its dangers as ‘malingering’. I have never heard in a modern setting such a primitive view of human frailty and vulnerability.

My own view is that if Assange is freed, he is likely to recover a substantial part of his life. He has a loving partner, devoted friends and allies and the innate strength of a principled political prisoner. He also has a wicked sense of humour.

But that is a long way off. The moments of collusion between the judge – a Gothic-looking magistrate called Vanessa Baraitser, about whom little is known – and the prosecution acting for the Trump regime have been brazen. Until the last few days, defence arguments have been routinely dismissed. The lead prosecutor, James Lewis QC, ex SAS and currently Chief Justice of the Falklands, by and large gets what he wants, notably up to four hours to denigrate expert witnesses, while the defence’s examination is guillotined at half an hour. I have no doubt, had there been a jury, his freedom would be assured.

The dissident artist Ai Weiwei came to join us one morning in the public gallery. He noted that in China the judge’s decision would already have been made. This caused some dark ironic amusement. My companion in the gallery, the astute diarist and former British ambassador Craig Murray wrote:

I fear that all over London a very hard rain is now falling on those who for a lifetime have worked within institutions of liberal democracy that at least broadly and usually used to operate within the governance of their own professed principles. It has been clear to me from Day 1 that I am watching a charade unfold. It is not in the least a shock to me that Baraitser does not think anything beyond the written opening arguments has any effect. I have again and again reported to you that, where rulings have to be made, she has brought them into court pre-written, before hearing the arguments before her.

I strongly expect the final decision was made in this case even before opening arguments were received.

The plan of the US Government throughout has been to limit the information available to the public and limit the effective access to a wider public of what information is available. Thus we have seen the extreme restrictions on both physical and video access. A complicit mainstream media has ensured those of us who know what is happening are very few in the wider population.

There are few records of the proceedings. They are: Craig Murray’s personal blog, Joe Lauria’s live reporting on Consortium News and the World Socialist Website. American journalist Kevin Gosztola’s blog, Shadowproof, funded mostly by himself, has reported more of the trial than the major US press and TV, including CNN, combined.

In Australia, Assange’s homeland, the ‘coverage’ follows a familiar formula set overseas. The London correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke, wrote this recently:

The court heard Assange became depressed during the seven years he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy where he sought political asylum to escape extradition to Sweden to answer rape and sexual assault charges.

There were no ‘rape and sexual assault charges’ in Sweden. Bourke’s lazy falsehood is not uncommon. If the Assange trial is the political trial of the century, as I believe it is, its outcome will not only seal the fate of a journalist for doing his job but intimidate the very principles of free journalism and free speech. The absence of serious mainstream reporting of the proceedings is, at the very least, self-destructive. Journalists should ask: who is next?

How shaming it all is. A decade ago, the Guardian exploited Assange’s work, claimed its profit and prizes as well as a lucrative Hollywood deal, then turned on him with venom. Throughout the Old Bailey trial, two names have been cited by the prosecution, the Guardian’s David Leigh, now retired as ‘investigations editor’ and Luke Harding, the Russiaphobe and author of a fictional Guardian ‘scoop’ that claimed Trump adviser Paul Manafort and a group of Russians visited Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy. This never happened, and the Guardian has yet to apologise. The Harding and Leigh book on Assange – written behind their subject’s back – disclosed a secret password to a WikiLeaks file that Assange had entrusted to Leigh during the Guardian’s ‘partnership’. Why the defence has not called this pair is difficult to understand.

Assange is quoted in their book declaring during a dinner at a London restaurant that he didn’t care if informants named in the leaks were harmed. Neither Harding nor Leigh was at the dinner. John Goetz, an investigations reporter with Der Spiegel, was at the dinner and testified that Assange said nothing of the kind. Incredibly, Judge Baraitser stopped Goetz actually saying this in court.

However, the defence has succeeded in demonstrating the extent to which Assange sought to protect and redact names in the files released by WikiLeaks and that no credible evidence existed of individuals harmed by the leaks. The great whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange had personally redacted 15,000 files. The renowned New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager, who worked with Assange on the Afghanistan and Iraq war leaks, described how Assange took ‘extraordinary precautions in redacting names of informants’.

Q: What are the implications of this trial’s verdict for journalism more broadly – is it an omen of things to come?

The ‘Assange effect’ is already being felt across the world. If they displease the regime in Washington, investigative journalists are liable to prosecution under the 1917 US Espionage Act; the precedent is stark. It doesn’t matter where you are. For Washington, other people’s nationality and sovereignty rarely mattered; now it does not exist. Britain has effectively surrendered its jurisdiction to Trump’s corrupt Department of Justice. In Australia, a National Security Information Act promises Kafkaesque trials for transgressors. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been raided by police and journalists’ computers taken away. The government has given unprecedented powers to intelligence officials, making journalistic whistle-blowing almost impossible. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Assange ‘must face the music’. The perfidious cruelty of his statement is reinforced by its banality.

‘Evil’, wrote Hannah Arendt, ‘comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil’.

Q: Having followed the story of WikiLeaks closely for a decade, how has this eyewitness experience shifted your understanding of what’s at stake with Assange’s trial?

I have long been a critic of journalism as an echo of unaccountable power and a champion of those who are beacons. So, for me, the arrival of WikiLeaks was exciting; I admired the way Assange regarded the public with respect, that he was prepared to share his work with the ‘mainstream’ but not join their collusive club. This, and naked jealousy, made him enemies among the overpaid and under-talented, insecure in their pretensions of independence and impartiality.

I admired the moral dimension to WikiLeaks. Assange was rarely asked about this, yet much of his remarkable energy comes from a powerful moral sense that governments and other vested interests should not operate behind walls of secrecy. He is a democrat. He explained this in one of our first interviews at my home in 2010.

What is at stake for the rest of us has long been at stake: freedom to call authority to account, freedom to challenge, to call out hypocrisy, to dissent. The difference today is that the world’s imperial power, the United States, has never been as unsure of its metastatic authority as it is today. Like a flailing rogue, it is spinning us towards a world war if we allow it. Little of this menace is reflected in the media.

WikiLeaks, on the other hand, has allowed us to glimpse a rampant imperial march through whole societies – think of the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, to name a few, the dispossession of 37 million people and the deaths of 12 million men, women and children in the ‘war on terror’ – most of it behind a façade of deception.

Julian Assange is a threat to these recurring horrors – that’s why he is being persecuted, why a court of law has become an instrument of oppression, why he ought to be our collective conscience: why we all should be the threat.

The judge’s decision will be known on the 4th of January.Reprinted with the author’s permission.

Romantic Revolutionaries: The Myth that Order Arises Out of Chaos

Sep 9, 2020 by Gary DeMar

The religion of something from nothing, order out of chaos origins is a popular creation myth developed out of thin air by materialist philosophers who can’t account for the matter they say gave rise to you and me. What we are seeing in cities that espouse the fundamentals of something from nothing scientism is a direct result of the rise of romantic revolutionaries who believe that chaos will beget order.

Rousas J. Rushdoony writes:

We should not be surprised … that Marxists and other worshipers of chaos are committed to revolution even when the peaceful take-over of a country is possible. Revolution must be created by mass liquidations and the destruction of all established law and order, including economic order. The “economics” of socialism (and welfare states) do not make sense because they are not intended to make sense: they are a defiance of the universe of God in the name of chaos. They invoke chaos as the highway to the golden age.

If they fail, the guilt is not theirs. They blame the failure on residual areas and pockets of religion, law, and order, or property and national loyalty. Their solution therefore is to increase the chaos. Since their universe is a universe of chaos: their golden age can only come through planned chaos. Hence, they deny the validity of the biblical God; they cannot accept a world of moral and economic law. Their golden age requires the triumph of man over religion, over morality, and over economics. The liberation of man requires the systematic violation and destruction of every law sphere. [1]

The assumption among the revolutionaries is that things will get better if America falls apart. When this happens, so the argument goes, the people will rise and throw off their oppressors, as they did during the French, Russian, and Cuban revolutions. The French Revolution, celebrated in France and often compared to our War for Independence, is a perfect example of how not to build a civilization with a lasting moral foundation. The American Revolution was not a revolution but a war for independence. There was no uprising of the people but a joining of 13 individual colonial governments with their constitutions to defend their sovereignty and their Christian moral base.

The murdering mobs that attacked the nearly empty Bastille (at the time of the siege there were only seven non-political prisoners) believed their actions were for a better France, similar to what today’s political revolutionaries have in mind. The storming of the Bastille was a catalyst for what became known as the Reign of Terror. “French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from left-wing political groups and the masses on the streets.” [2] How bad was it?

Internally, popular sentiments by some of the nation’s most perverse  social theorists radicalized the revolutionary fervor, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and the virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 when between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.

History 101

History 101: Lessons from the Past

History 101 is an overview course designed to help Christians understand their place in the historical timeline. With study materials in audio, video, and print, History 101 will give the student of history much to think about. This course will point the way forward by revealing how we got where we are.Buy Now

Did you get that? Between 16,000 and 40,000 French citizens were killed for a better France. Consider the following:

Ordered by the king [Louis XVI] to surrender, more than 600 Swiss guards were savagely murdered. The mobs ripped them to shreds and mutilated their corpses. “Women, lost to all sense of shame,” said one surviving witness, “were committing the most indecent mutilations on the dead bodies from which they tore pieces of flesh and carried them off in triumph.” Children played kickball with the guards’ heads. Every living thing in the Tuileries [royal palace in Paris] was butchered or thrown from the windows by the hooligans. Women were raped before being hacked to death.

The Jacobin club ​…​ demanded that the piles of rotting, defiled corpses surrounding the Tuileries be left to putrefy in the street for days afterward as a warning to the people of the power of the extreme left.

This bestial attack, it was later decreed, would be celebrated every year as “the festival of the unity and indivisibility of the republic.” It would be as if families across America delighted in the annual TV special “A Manson Family Christmas.” [3]

In time, the supposed just cause of the revolutionary mobs got out of hand, and people began to notice where the revolution was taking them. What began as a way to eradicate corruption among the ruling classes of civil governing officials and religious hierarchy spilled over to the general population.

During the Reign of Terror, extreme efforts of de-Christianization ensued, including the imprisonment and massacre of priests and destruction of churches and religious images throughout France. An effort was made to replace the Catholic Church altogether, with civic festivals replacing religious ones. The establishment of the Cult of Reason was the final step of radical de-Christianization. [4]

It was at this point that the people became disillusioned with the revolutionary ways of the radicals, but not before more atrocities were committed for the supposed salvation of the people and the nation. As revolutionary leader Jean-Paul Marat wrote in a newspaper in 1792, “Let the blood of the traitors flow! That is the only way to save the country.” And it did as Marat’s followers attacked and butchered hundreds of enemies of the revolution. Two bonfires were constructed to cremate the mutilated corpses. “The gutters ran red with blood.”

Don’t say it can’t happen here. The people in France, Russia, Cuba, China, and Venezuela probably said the same thing.

One of the first things that these revolutions do is attack the prevailing religion. We’re seeing this happen in the United States. There’s been a steady history of removing anything related to God and the Bible from our culture. The Bible was relegated to the Church on Sunday, but even that’s under attack. Some want the Bible banned for what it says about same-sex sexuality. There is no way to appease the anarchists. They want it all.

“[L]eft-wing radicals burn Bibles, assault and murder policemen and civilians, set fire to courthouses, vandalize and loot all manner of businesses,” Roger Kimball writes. “The clips of the savages burning Bibles put me in mind of Heinrich Heine’s solemn observation that Dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen: ‘Wherever people burn books, they also end up burning men.’” [5]

  1. The Religion of Revolution (Victoria, TX: Trinity Episcopal Church, 1965), [3-4].[]
  2. “The French Revolution,” Institute for the Study of Western Civilization (May 24, 2017):]
  3. Ann Coulter, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2011), 107.[]
  4. “The French Revolution”: The Reign of Terror,” Thought Crackers (Sept. 17, 2015):​reign-of-terror.html%5B]
  5. Roger Kimball, “The Choice Before Us,” American Greatness (August 1, 2020):]