Amnesty and African-American Men

Nonstop Flow of Illegals Hurts Black Communitycapt.56e43e7b30dd42308b494c6f06629ce1.amish_school_shoot (1)


 In 1964, Malcolm X chastised black people for their blind allegiance to the Democratic Party.

“You put them first,” he said, “and they put you last — ’cause you’re a chump. A political chump! … Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you are dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party — you’re not only a chump, but you’re a traitor to your race.”

democrat communistThe Democratic Party embraces “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is code for amnesty, which, in turn, is code for “keep the borders porous so we get a constant stream of new Democratic voters and cheap labor.”

Attorney Peter Kirsanow, one of eight members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, says that unskilled illegal aliens pose an economic threat to unskilled Americans, a disproportionate amount of whom are black.

jazzjamLast year, Kirsanow, along with two other committee members, sent a letter to his congresswoman, Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. The letter advised Fudge and the caucus to oppose the Democrats’ proposed amnesty e williams

“Illegal immigration,” said the letter, “has a disparate impact on African-American men because these men are disproportionately represented in the low-skilled labor force . . .

“The obvious question is whether there are sufficient jobs in the low-skilled labor market for both African-Americans and illegal immigrants. The answer is no. … Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will only further harm African-American workers.”

What about the urban crime caused by some illegal aliens?

From Oct. 1 through June 30, over 57,000 unaccompanied alien children were apprehended entering the country illegally. Many voluntarily turn themselves over to authorities with the goal of obtaining “permiso” to remain in the country. Not only do they pose a threat to jobs, but also we have no idea how many are intent on entering the country to commit crimes.

According to Pew Research, 85% to 90% of the “children” apprehended at the border are teens, from 13 to 17 years of age.

In Los Angeles in 2008, 17-year-old high school academic/athletic scholar Jamiel Shaw was shot and killed just three doors away from his house while walking home from the mall at 8:40 p.m. The student athlete with a solid grade-point average was a promising football star who had been named the Southern League’s most valuable player. He had just received phone calls from schools like Rutgers and Stanford.

His killer? An illegal alien who had served time in jail for assault with a deadly weapon and been released one day earlier by police who, apparently, never bothered to check his immigration status.

Hours after his release, he killed Shaw. Shaw’s crime? Wearing a red Spider-Man backpack. The color red, in the mind of the killer, meant that Shaw was a member of some rival gang. He was not.

Only days ago, four people were arrested for the beating death of a Chinese graduate student attending USC, a school located right in inner-city Los Angeles. One of the four admitted that, seven years ago, he entered the country illegally. Whether, as was the case with Shaw’s killer, this illegal alien had a post-entry arrest record, we don’t yet know.

In Maryland, also just days ago, six young Hispanics — illegal aliens, according to ABC — were arrested for stabbing to death a black homeless man. Several of the alleged killers admitted belonging to the notorious MS-13 gang.

Republicans should exploit the Democratic embrace of “comprehensive immigration reform” by emphasizing the threat illegal aliens pose to jobs.

Back in 1994, the majority of California’s black voters supported Proposition 187, which would have prevented illegal aliens from getting taxpayer-paid public education and nonemergency medical benefits. Opponents challenged it in court, and the governor ultimately gutted the proposition. But it passed not only among the majority of white voters, but the majority of Asian and black voters as well.

Republicans support securing our borders before discussing legalization for the 10-12 million estimated illegal aliens here now. Recent polls show Republicans put “stopping the flow of illegal aliens” as their top legislative issue.

In 1964, blacks voted 80% Democratic. Fifty years later, it’s 95%. What would Malcolm say?


Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Posted in Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Brief Reminder of the Recent History of Liberal Racism


By Ann Coulter

Liberals ignored my book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (throughout the fall). Now that I’m safely home from my book tour, they feel free to jabber on about their make-believe history of the civil rights movement with abandon.
In the hackiest of all hacky articles, Sam Tanenhaus, the man responsible for ruining The New York Times Book Review, has written a cover story in The New Republic, titled: “Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people.” 

MSNBC has been howling this cliche for a decade — or, as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said of Tanenhaus’ article, “a bold headline”!

Being interviewed by a giddy Matthews — who has no black friends, employees or neighbors — Tanenhaus announced the startling fact that once, long ago, some Republicans supported civil rights!

“In the 1950s, as I say in the piece you read, Republicans looked pretty good on civil rights under Eisenhower. We had the Brown decision, the Central High in Little Rock, where he did the tough thing and sent the troops in, and we had the first modern civil rights act.”

It wasn’t a “tough” decision for President Eisenhower to send troops to Little Rock in 1957.

In the presidential campaign the year before, the Republican platform had expressly endorsed the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The Democratic platform did not.

To the contrary, that year, 99 members of Congress signed the “Southern Manifesto” denouncing the court’s ruling in Brown. Two were Republicans. Ninety-seven were Democrats.

As president, Eisenhower pushed through the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act. He established the Civil Rights Commission. It was Eisenhower, not Truman, who fully desegregated the military.

Meanwhile, the Brown decision was being openly defied by the Democratic governor of Arkansas (and Bill Clinton pal), Orval Faubus, who refused to admit black students to Little Rock Central High School.

Liberals act as if Eisenhower’s sending federal troops to Little Rock was like Nixon going to China. No, it was like Nixon going to California.

Only someone who knows no history could proclaim, as Tanenhaus did, that the 1957 act “wasn’t great, it wasn’t what LBJ gave us, but it was something.”

If Eisenhower’s 1957 civil rights bill was weak, it was because of one man: Lyndon B. Johnson. As Robert Caro explains in his book, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson;” it was LBJ who stripped the bill of its enforcement provisions. Even after that, the bill was still opposed by 18 senators — all of them Democrats.

To the easily astounded Chris Matthews, Tanenhaus breathlessly remarked, “Not one Republican voted against that bill!” as if the 1957 Civil Right Act was a Democratic idea and they were delighted to get any Republican support at all.

Imagine a modern German historian saying: “Remember — it wasn’t just Germans who opposed the Holocaust. The English and Americans did too!” Such a historian would be beaten bloody, quite rightly so.

The 1957 bill was sent to Congress by Eisenhower, passed with the intervention of Vice President Richard Nixon, and opposed exclusively by Democrats. Not “Southern Democrats,” not “conservative Democrats,” but Democrats, such as Wayne Morse of Oregon, Warren Magnuson of Washington, James Murray of Montana, Mike Mansfield of Montana and Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming.

With absolutely no evidence (because there is none), Tanenhaus then asserted that Republicans decided “they were not going to be pro-civil rights. … They were going to side with the Southern oppressors.” [Cretin] Matthews seconded this gibberish by saying Nixon was “playing the Southern Strategy electorally with Strom Thurmond and those boys.” 

Who exactly does Matthews imagine he means by “Strom Thurmond and those boys”? Every single segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat. Only one of them ever became a Republican: Strom Thurmond.

The rest remained not only Democrats, but quite liberal Democrats. These included such liberal luminaries as Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Allen Ellender, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright, Walter F. George, Russell Long and Richard Russell.

Fulbright was Bill Clinton’s mentor. Gore was “Al Jazeera” Gore’s father. Sam Ervin headed Nixon’s impeachment committee. The segregationists who were in the Senate in the ’50s were rabid Joe McCarthy opponents. In the ’60s, they opposed the Vietnam War and supported LBJ’s Great Society programs. In the ’90s, they got 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

These “Southern oppressors” were liberal Democrats when they were racists and remained liberal Democrats after they finally stopped being racists (at least, in public). If Republicans had a racist “Southern strategy,” it didn’t work on the racists.

Nor did Nixon — or Reagan — ever win over segregationist voters. Republicans only began sweeping the South after the segregationists died.

Even as late as 1980, when Reagan won a 44-state landslide, the old segregationists were still voting Democrat. Although Reagan handily won Southern states that had been voting Republican since the ’20s, he barely won — or lost — the Goldwater states.

According to numerous polls, Reagan swept Southern college students, while losing college students in the Northeast. Meanwhile, The Washington Post called the elderly “a bedrock of Carter’s southern base.” 

As LBJ explained to fellow Democrats after doing a 180-flip on civil rights as president and pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which resembled Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act he had gutted as a senator): “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.” That’s according to a steward on Air Force One, who overhead him say it.

It’s one thing to rewrite history to say the Holocaust was when the Swedes killed the Jews. But it’s another to say that the Holocaust was when Jews killed the Germans.

That’s how liberals retell the history of civil rights in America. For the truth, get (the book) Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama.



Article from



Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

St. Ann Coulter Re-informs Bill O’Reilly

Is O’Reilly Killing History?balloon face

Ann Coulter

 Does anyone read anymore? I mean, besides tweets from Anthony Weiner?


During his otherwise excellent commentaries on race in America, Bill O’Reilly, host of the No. 1 cable news show, claimed on Tuesday night that the one person who tried to help African-Americans more than any other was … Robert F. Kennedy!

coulterNo one laughed. I guess that’s what they’re teaching these days at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. (I can’t wait to hear how Ted Kennedy helped eradicate drunk driving!)

According to O’Reilly’s Bizarro-World history, Bobby Kennedy was “the guy who was really concerned about African-Americans” and “who really DID SOMETHING. … He went in with the federal government and he cleaned out the rat’s nest that was abusing African-Americans in the South.”

Although this myth has been polished to perfection by the jazzjamKennedy PR machine (requiring all Kennedy stories to illustrate either courage or adorableness), it is simply a fact that helping blacks was not the Democrats’ priority. Even the ones who wanted to — such as Bobby and John Kennedy — couldn’t risk upsetting the segregationists, more than 90 percent of whom were Democratic.

The job of actually enforcing civil rights and desegregating Southern schools fell to Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

Five years after Eisenhower had shown the Democrats how its done by sending federal troops to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., President Kennedy and brother Bobby still dragged their feet in helping James Meredith enter the University of Mississippi.

On Feb. 7, 1961, Meredith wrote a beautiful letter to the Department of Justice, describing his inability to enroll at the University of Mississippi, He wrote:

“Whenever I attempt to reason logically about this matter, it grieves me deeply to realize that an individual, especially an American, the citizen of a free democratic nation, has to clamor with such procedures in order to try to gain just a small amount of his civil and human rights, and even after suffering the embarrassments and personal humiliation of this procedure, there still seems little hope of success.”

The full letter is worth looking up. I would venture to guess there are not many college applicants of any race who write this well today. (You know why? Because Americans don’t read anymore. You watch cable news and fill your heads with nonsense history and false facts.)

In response to Meredith’s eloquent letter, Bobby Kennedy did nothing. And that’s how Bobby Kennedy “cleaned out the rat’s nest that was abusing African-Americans in the South”!

Remember: This was seven years after the Supreme Court had already handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education — a ruling expressly endorsed in the Republican Party platform, but not the Democratic platform, I might add.

But Democrats were in the White House, so Meredith had to take his case to the Supreme Court. Liberals were engaging in their usual massive resistance to court rulings they don’t like and neither Bobby nor John Kennedy would dare try to stop them.

You will notice that the Freedom Rides and civil rights marches all took place under Democratic presidents. It was the only way to get Democratic administrations to intervene against their fellow Democrats.

In June 1962, a federal appellate court ruled that Meredith had been denied admittance to “Ole Miss” because of his race and ordered the university to enroll him. (At least that’s how the two Republican judges voted; the segregationist FDR appointee dissented.) But one old segregationist on the court — who had not even sat on the case — kept issuing stays to prevent enforcement of the ruling.

Only when these illegitimate stays were appealed to the Supreme Court did Bobby Kennedy’s Justice Department finally weigh in, asking Justice Hugo Black, the circuit justice, to lift the stays — nearly two years after Meredith had written to the Department of Justice asking for its help.

Needless to say, Justice Black came down on Meredith’s side in a matter of about six seconds. The full court had already decided the school segregation issue years earlier in Brown.

But the state still would not admit Meredith to Ole Miss.

With a showdown inevitable, President Kennedy, on the counsel of his trusted attorney general, Bobby Kennedy, wrote a letter to the segregationist Democrat governor of Mississippi, Ross Barnett.

These were JFK’s stirring words on behalf of the constitutional rights of black Americans, redeemed with the blood of American patriots:

“White House, September 30, 1962

“To preserve our constitutional system, the Federal Government has an overriding responsibility to enforce the orders of the Federal Courts. Those courts have ordered that James Meredith be admitted now as a student at the University of Mississippi.”

So basically, his hands were tied. It reads like a letter from a Republican administration explaining why it’s forced to comply with a gay marriage ruling. (JFK’s weasel-word letter is also worth looking up.)

Yes, eventually the Kennedy brothers sent the National Guard to force the University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith. It wasn’t hard to figure out what to do: Eisenhower had sent in the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation back in 1957 against a much more tenacious segregationist (and Bill Clinton pal), Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas.

But in the rest of the South, schools remained segregated as long as Bobby Kennedy was attorney general and either JFK or LBJ was in the White House. (LBJ [said] on the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”)

Black Americans may say hosannas to Bobby Kennedy, but they would have to wait for Richard Nixon to become president to win the promise of Brown v. Board.

Within Nixon’s first two years in the White House, black students attending segregated schools in the South declined from nearly 70 percent to 18.4 percent. There was more desegregation of American public schools in Nixon’s first term than in any historical period before or since.

It was not an accident that Nixon launched his comeback in 1966 with a column denouncing Democrats for trying to “squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.” It’s also not an accident that James Meredith was a Republican. (You’d know all this if you had read Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, but you were busy watching TV.)

Crediting Bobby Kennedy for the great work he did on behalf of black Americans would be like calling Harry Reid the country’s greatest champion of the unborn. Sure, Reid says he’s pro-life, but he dare not act on it lest he upset the rest of his party. It was the same with Democrats and civil rights.

If you want to say something nice about Bobby Kennedy, remind everyone that he proudly worked for Sen. Joe McCarthy.


Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Liberals drove Blacks out of San Francisco

How Liberals drove Blacks out of San Franciscoyin yang

“The Liberal Crusade to Feel Morally Superior”

by Thomas Sowell

 “The Black Population of San Francisco is less than half of what it was in 1970”          

There is no question that liberals do an impressive job of expressing concern for blacks. But do the intentions expressed in their words match the actual consequences of their deeds?

OSan Francisco is a classic example of a city unexcelled in its liberalism. But the black population of San Francisco today is less than half of what it was back in 1970, even though the city’s total population has grown.B

Severe restrictions on building housing in San Francisco have driven rents and home prices so high that blacks and other people with low or moderate incomes have been driven out of the city. The same thing has happened in a number of other California communities dominated by liberals.

occupy and the eliteLiberals try to show their concern for the poor by raising the level of minimum wage laws. Yet they show no interest in hard evidence that minimum wage laws create disastrous levels of unemployment among young blacks in this country, as such laws created high unemployment rates among young people in general in European countries.

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.Sailing - JP Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race - Cowes

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are “Mismatch” by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and “Wounds That Will Not Heal” by Russell K. Nieli. My own book “Affirmative Action Around the World” shows the same thing with different evidence.

In all these cases, and many others, liberals take positions that make them look good and feel good — and show very little interest in the actual consequences for others, even when liberal policies are leaving havoc in their wake.

The current liberal crusade for more so-called “gun control” laws is more of the same. Factual studies over the years, both in the United States and in other countries, repeatedly show that “gun control” laws do not in fact reduce crimes committed with guns.

Cities with some of the tightest gun control laws in the nation have murder rates far above the national average. In the middle of the 20th century, New York had far more restrictive gun control laws than London, but London had far less gun crime. Yet gun crimes in London skyrocketed after severe gun control laws were imposed over the next several decades.

Although gun control is not usually considered a racial issue, a wholly disproportionate number of Americans killed by guns are black. But here, as elsewhere, liberals’ devotion to their ideology greatly exceeds their concern about what actually happens to flesh and blood human beings as a result of their ideology.

One of the most polarizing and counterproductive liberal crusades of the 20th century has been the decades-long busing crusade to send black children to predominantly white schools. The idea behind this goes back to the pronouncement by Chief Justice Earl Warren that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

Yet within walking distance of the Supreme Court where this pronouncement was made was an all-black high school that had scored higher than two-thirds of the city’s white high schools taking the same test — way back in 1899! But who cares about facts, when you are on a liberal crusade that makes you feel morally superior?

To challenge government-imposed racial segregation and discrimination is one thing. But to claim that blacks get a better education if they sit next to whites in school is something very different. And it is something that goes counter to the facts.

Many liberal ideas about race sound plausible, and it is understandable that these ideas might have been attractive 50 years ago. What is not understandable is how so many liberals can blindly ignore 50 years of evidence to the contrary since then.


Article from


Posted in Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wealth and the Eighth Commandment

cashCapitalization and Wealth:            State vs. Private

Wealth and the Eighth Commandment

By Rev. R.J. Rushdoony

 According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the question of acquiring wealth is directly related to the eighth commandment:10 commandments...

  1. 73: Which is the eighth commandment?

A: The eighth commandment is, Thou shalt not steal.

  1. 74: What is required in the eighth commandment?
  2. The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others.
  3. 75: What is forbidden in the eighth commandment?
  4. The eighth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever doth or may unjustly hinder our own or our neighbour’s wealth or outward estate.

marti grasAnswer 75 had in mind the love of pleasure, drunkenness, gluttony, laziness, and theft — and cited Proverbs 21:17; 22:20; 28:19, and Ephesians 4:28. Alexander Whyte saw this commandment as covering “all matters connected with the earning, saving, spending, inheriting and bequeathing of money and property.”1 Whyte added;

All a man’s possessions, go back to the beginning of them, go down to the bottom of them, hay man!will always be found to represent so much self-denial, labour, industry. Obscure as may be the origin, history, and growth of this or that particular estate, yet it must in its beginning have been due to some man’s obedience to the Creator’s law of labour and reward. “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” This is the original charter of the right of property.2

Whyte further added, “Akin to the habit of industry is the sister habit of frugality and forethought.”3

Capitalization is the accumulation of wealth, the conversion of work, savings, and forethought into tangible working assets. No progress is possible without some measure of capitalization. It is a serious error to assume that socialism and communism are opposed to capitalization or to capitalism; their opposition is simply to private capitalismbut their dedicated policy is to state capitalismFor the state to plan any program of progress, public works, or conquest, work, frugality, and forethought are necessary. The work is exacted from the people by force; the frugality or savings is again forced out of the people by means of wage controls, compulsory savings and bond-buying programs, and slave labor, the forethought is provided by the state planners.Liberal gods

State capitalism (socialism, communism) is seriously defective for a number of reasons. Most notably, first of all, it represents theft. The private capital of the people is expropriated, as well as their work and savings. It is thus a radically dishonest capitalization.

tough timesSecond, forethought is divorced from work and frugality, that is, the planners are not the ones who provide the work and the sacrifice. As a result, the planners have no brake of immediate consequences imposed upon them. They can be prodigal in their waste of manpower and capital without bankruptcy, in that the state compels the continuance of their non-economic and wasteful planning. The consequence is that, wherever planning is separated from work and savings, instead of capitalization, the result is decapitalization. Socialism is thus by nature imperialistic, in that it must periodically seize or annex a fresh territory in order to have fresh capital to gut by expropriation. State capitalism is thus an agency of decapitalization.

Private capital is acquired basically in three ways, excluding private theft as an illegal and immoral means. These three ways are by work, inheritance, and gift. Private capital must then be utilized by planning, and the loss is the planner’s loss, so that there is an incentive to efficiency in private capital, even where received by gift or by inheritance, which is lacking in state capitalism. The immediacy of consequences, the direct liability of the private capitalist to loss, makes private capital more responsible even where the private capitalist is a thief. Where criminal syndicates like the Mafia enter into business, they do so with a ruthless eye towards profits and efficiency which is lacking in state capitalism.

Lawful wealth is that wealth which comes to man as he abides by God’s law and applies work, thrift, and forethought to his activities. Lawful wealth is a covenant promise; hence the warning by Moses in Deuteronomy 8:11-20, culminating in vs. 18 with the statement, “But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is to this day.” Man must not say in his heart, “My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth” vs. 17).  Wright’s comment on this is good:

The pride is most terrible and insidious because it flouts the plainest of facts, by asserting the virtual deity of self: “My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth” (vs. 17). Yet Israel must remember that the wealth is by God’s power, not her own, and it is given in accord with his covenanted promises, not in payment for what the nation deserves (vs. 18). This is one of the strongest and most powerful passages in the Bible on this characteristic and distressing problem of human life. Wealth here is not by natural right; it is God’s gift. Yet man must beware of the terrible and self-destructive temptation to deify himself which comes with it.4

True wealth, godly wealth is a product of covenant blessings on work, thrift, and foresight; it is inseparably connected with the law. The commandments are given “that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land” (Deut. 8:1).

Scripture distinguishes throughout between godly wealth and ungodly wealth. Wealth in itself therefore is not a sign of God’s favor; it can be a witness to theft and fraud. Wealth can be, however, a sign of God’s favor and an evidence of covenantal blessings where accompanied by lawful means and godly faith.

To return to the matter of capitalization, capitalization in a society requires a background of faith and character. In every era of history, capitalization is a product of the “Puritan disposition,” of the willingness to forego present pleasures to accumulate some wealth for future purposes. Where there is no character, there is no capitalization but rather decapitalization, the steady depletion of wealth. Society becomes consumption centered rather than productive, and it begins to decapitalize the centuries-rich inheritance which surrounds it.

Thus, decapitalization is preceded always by a breakdown of faith and character. Where men feel that private happiness is man’s purpose and goal rather than serving and glorifying God, and finding joy in Him, where men feel that life owes them something rather than seeing themselves as debtors to God, and where men feel called to fulfil themselves apart from God rather than in Him, there society is in rapid process of decapitalization.

To return now to Deuteronomy 8:1, 18, the purpose of wealth is the establishment of God’s covenant; its goal is that man prosper in his task of possessing the earth, subduing it and exercising dominion over it. The means to lawful wealth is the covenant law, the law of God. Capitalization is thus a radical and total task. Man must seek to subdue the earth and gain wealth as a means of restitution and restoration, as means of establishing God’s dominion in every realm. Wherever godly men establish their superior productivity and gain wealth, they thereby glorify God. Wealth in itself is good, and a blessing of the Lord. It is trust in wealth rather than God which Scripture condemns (Ps. 49:6, 7). We are told that, “When Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the LORD, and all Israel with him” (II Chron. 12:1). “The rich man’s wealth is his strong city, and as a high wall in his own conceit” (Prov. 18:11; cf. 10:15; BV, “The rich man’s wealth is his strong city and as a high wall—so he thinks”).

Godly wealth is basic to God’s purposes for the earth.   It is a vital link in the task of restoration.

Benjamin Franklin, in his Memoirs, mentions a merchant named Denham, who failed in his business at Bristol, compounded with his creditors, and went to America. In a few years he accumulated a plentiful fortune, returned to England in the same ship with Franklin, called his creditors together to an entertainment, and paid the full remainder of his debts, with interest up to the time of settlement.5

Personal restitution is godly, but much more is required. Man must restore the earth, must make it truly and fully God’s kingdom, the domain in which His law-word is taught, obeyed, and honored. Man must gain wealth and use it to the glory of God, but, to gain lawful wealth, man must know and obey the law. Godly wealth is to be acquired, held, and used in good conscience; it is a happy result of the covenant of God.


 Alexander Whyte:  A Commentary on the Shorter Catechism (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961: reprint), p. 145.

  1. Ibid., p. 145 f.
  2. Ibid., p.  146.
  3. G. Ernest Wright, “Deuteronomy,” Interpreter’s Bible, II, 389.
  4. John Whitecross: The Shorter Catechism Illustrated from Christian Biography and History (London: Banner of Truth Trust, [1828] 1968), p. 114.

Taken from Institutes of Biblical Law, Volume 1, pgs. 522-525

Rev. R.J. Rushdoony (1916-2001) was the founder of Chalcedon and a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numerous works on the application of Biblical Law to society.

Article from


Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Gov't/Theonomy, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

International Inequality: Pay-up America!

  Do We Need to End Inequality? For People > For Nations?social idiot

International Inequality: Time for the American taxpayer to pay even More?

 By Diane Medved

  The buzz word “inequality” has weirdly become a rallying cry for the far left in America. Our nation embraces equality, as in “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Both political parties love that phrase. The issue is whether all men and women should remain equal and develop equally, and whether it’s within government’s scope to assure that outcome.poverty 2

Minimum wage debates express the notion that free markets don’t adequately offer fair compensation; that the government must therefore make laws requiring a floor salary for every and any type of work. Each state has its own minimum wage.

Now, we’ve extended that to make the floor salary a federal minimum, rather than a state issue that can respond to local circumstances. Somehow, President Obama believes that $10.10 per hour provides a comparable “living wage” in both New York City and Memphis, Tennessee.

tough timesThis is a huge debate, one we in Seattle endured en route to the newly council-approved $15 minimum wage, successfully championed by “socialist” City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant. The trendy term “inequality” assumes socialistic underpinnings–but rather than delve into them, I’d like you to think about inequality in the shockingly novel way it’s now being internationally applied.

If we should strive for all citizens within our country to have financial “equality,” or, at least a comparable level of comfort in life; what about nations? Do all countries deserve equality, too? Given that the U.S. has so much, should people in another nation suffer just because that unfortunate land​ has a corrupt government and a culture of bribery and cruelty?poverty

Apparently the Presidents of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala don’t think so. With 57,000 unaccompanied children since October sent to the U.S. with coyotes (smugglers) by their fearful and hopeful parents, leaders of their home countries say our tempting plenty and opportunity are to blame.

Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez told the Center for Strategic and International Studies that conniving coyotes “peddle a mistake…a totally wrong interpretation to the parents of these children saying ‘You can get your kids into the U.S., we can do it for you.’”  The lure is our safety and economic opportunity–which we unfairly enjoy while they suffer.

busy​​”We will not be able to solve this problem unless we go to the root, and this requires an integral task, one that is based on the principle of shared responsibility,” Hernandez declared. “The U.S.A. is responsible, and we are responsible, and we are facing up to our responsibility.” The implication being that we, the United States, are not.

If only there were equality among nations, Central American parents fearful of violent gangs wouldn’t have to send their offspring far away, alone. If only they could go to school, choose a college, and have a chance for good jobs or to start businesses, their people would keep their progeny at home. We have all these things in the U.S., and they don’t. We must therefore “share responsibility” for the influx of people who risk all, including their lives, for freedom.reaching out to God

Our nation has been blessed by God, but also blessed in the self-selecting populations who came across oceans because they had the courage to face even greater uncertainty and danger for the chance of a better life, spiritually or economically. The personality traits of such people, I believe, shaped our country’s success. Our nation’s founding populations rooted their entrepreneurial efforts in biblical values and ethics, which underpinned both law and behavior.

Are the governments and populations of Central American countries behaving in their own lands similarly to the builders and continued leaders of the United States?  If you believe in “shared responsibility” and want to stop inequality internationally, it doesn’t matter. One nation is “as good as” another, and the successful owe the chaotic some of what they’ve built to “even the playing field” and “spread the wealth.”

Does this relative morality sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me? The problems for these countries are complex, but a deeply-rooted system of corruption, and citizens so adapted to it that they perpetrate it so as to at least reap some advantage from it, dominate the list. The proliferation of drug thugs and gangs’ power apparently arose over the past two decades, but devastating civil conflicts with warlords intermittently assuming power, made survival the priority rather than adherence to standards of ethics. Whatever analysis you choose, not all countries can be, or deserve to be ​equally successful. ​

Those individuals or nations who place honorable values above personal gain are the sources of freedom, order and opportunity that attract and deserve support. I would have liked to hear the Central American presidents address these underlying issues rather than insisting that the United States, object of desperate desire for so many immigrants, is at fault and owes them redress.


This column appears on Diane Medved’s blog, Searching for Bright Light.

Article from


Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Worldview/Culture, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel/Gaza: Do You Believe in Miracles?

Israel/Gaza: Do You Believe in Miracles?washington dc

The Bizarro World of Obama’s Foreign Policy

By Pete Coker

 Does it not seem odd that President Obama and John Kerry appear to be so indifferent to the Israel-Gaza conflict that they are inadvertently endorsing the Hamas terrorist organization?

U.N. BuildingIronically, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are on Israel’s side in this recent conflict. These countries, which are normally, always against Israel, are not only being somewhat quiet, they have all backed Egypt’s cease-fire proposal.

According to reports, as a result of the Israel-Gaza conflict, Jew-hating protests are erupting in many places in Europe and becoming increasingly violent. In France, Muslim immigrants are doing everything in their power to make life miserable for Jews living there. In Germany, people are taking to the streets and chanting about resurrecting “gas ovens” for the Jews again. Strangely, in Europe, the politicians are not anti-Israel, the media and the people are.anti liberty 2

Now back to the Middle-East and the new team divisions. In the Eastern Division league we have; Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. And in the Western Division league; the United States of America, Iran, and Syria. So, as Mark Steyn has eloquently pointed out, it now appears there is a juxtaposition of Egypt and Sunni leaders aligning with Israel vs. Shiite leaders and the U.S.A. aligning against Israel. To further confuse these alignments, Egypt is seeking to push the Muslim Brotherhood aside. This is a somewhat strange turn in that the Muslim Brotherhood has Sunni roots. But, then again, the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t exactly perceived as a stabilizing force in the region. So then, are Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia actually beginning to see Israel as an essential link to stability for the region?What may appear to the West as a strange alliance in recent Arab regional politics; may just be a new practical approach by Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia for the future stability of the region.double rainbow

Referring back to my question at the beginning of this article and why President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry appear to be favoring Hamas with their public indifference? I have a theory which may make both of them look much smarter than they likely are. This theory (in analogous form) requires referring to a movie titled, “Miracle,” starring Kurt Russell, who plays the real life hockey coach, (the late) Herb Brooks.

Herb Brooks coached the 1980 U.S.A. Olympic Hockey Team that defeated the seemingly undefeatable Soviet Union Hockey Team in a surprise upset! In picking his players for the team, Herb chose young players who were previously from rival teams in Boston and Minnesota. As suspected, some of the players did not get along and old rivalries clashed. Something had to be done to unite the team or they would ultimately fail.

Herb, in thinking way ahead of the situation, had a psychological plan to deal with the problem. Basically, as coach, Herb decided to be a tough, physically demanding, no-nonsense, “prick.” He delegated his assistant coach and Team Doctor to befriend and look-after the players. His theory was that the players would soon become united in their dislike and hatred of him and would then “stop hating each other.” As a result, they would become united players; a team, a family. Herb’s strategy worked. His team went on to beat the top-ranked hockey team in the world. It is still considered one of the greatest victories in all of sports history!

The analogy proposed here may be a l-o-n-g stretch, but; what if President Obama is doing something similar to coach Herb Brooks? What if he is being a “prick” to affect a more positive outcome in the Middle East? Instead of running to the aid of Israel; he just acts with indifference. The result: Other nations in the region decide there may be something in it for them. So, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan come together and step up to the plate. Maybe they begin to see something they hadn’t seen before.

Now, maybe none of this actually, ever crossed President Obama’s or Secretary John Kerry’s minds. Maybe it just happened in spite of their overall incompetence. Either way, it could very well be a milestone in Middle East regional politics. Do you believe in miracles?


Article from



Posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Eschatology, Worldview/Culture, X-Americana, Z-Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment