History Facts vs. Millennials Education Failure —Ignorance of History on Communism and Socialism, Society without God-2

History Facts vs. Millennials Education Failure— Ignorance of History on Communism and Socialism, Society without God

Therefore my people are gone into acaptivity, because they have no bknowledge. ~Isaiah 5:13

Ignorance of History Comes Home to Roost: Communism and Millennials

Dr. Jerry Newcombe

Part 2

Entitlement Attitude of Society without God

I also interviewed Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of a large church in the greater D. C. area. He told our viewers, “[T]hings like socialism are attractive because in a secular society without God, folks see that culture as being the provider of all things. I don’t think young people are looking beneath the ‘gimmies,’ the benefits, the promise.”

The pollster George Barna also told our viewers recently, “37% of Americans say they prefer socialism to capitalism. When you look at the millennial generation, it’s a significant majority of them who prefer that.”

Millennial Ignorance of History

Millennials don’t seem to know this history. Perhaps they’ve never heard of The Black Book of Communism. The publisher is Harvard University Press (1999).

This book documents in no uncertain terms the brutality that the Communists inflicted on the world. The authors write of Communism’s death toll in the 20th century: “The total approaches 100 million people killed.” (p. 4, emphasis added). The tolls are staggering: nearly 20 million killed in the Soviet Union under Stalin (which is frankly a low estimate), 65 million in China under Mao, and millions more in Cambodia, North Korea, and Ethiopia, among others.

Scholars Have Neglected Communist Crimes

They point out: “One cannot help noticing the strong contrast between the study of Nazi and Communist crimes…. scholars have neglected the crimes committed by the Communists.” (p. 17)

We do not even know the exact number of Ukrainians Stalin killed. He reportedly had the census workers shot, so that history would never know how many he forced into starvation. Perhaps at least 3.5 million human beings died just in the Ukraine in the 1930s, in what Robert Conquest has called “the harvest of sorrow.” Some estimate it was as many as 8 million killed.

Young People in the West Today Need to Learn the Truth about Socialism and Communism

Young people in the West today, including America and Great Britain, need to learn the truth about socialism and Communism. I highly recommend two easy-to-read novels exposing the truth by a former Communist, British writer George Orwell, Animal Farm (a parable on the Russian Revolution—where the revolutionaries turned out to be worse than the czar) and 1984.

To think that young people today could long for a resurrection of “full communism” just reflects how little they know about history. “History repeats itself,” writes British poet Steve Turner. “It has to. No one is listening.”

 

Young people who have grown up with freedom and convenience tend to take it for granted —even to be lured by tyrannical “utopian” doctrines—because they don’t know what it’s like to be without God, and without freedom. 

Why Young Adults need to know about Judeo-Christian Heritage and Freedom of Religion

See Ignorance of History, Part 1

 

https://barbwire.com/2018/01/04/ignorance-roost-communism-and-millennials/

Advertisements

History Facts vs. Millennials Education Failure—Ignorance of History on Victims of Communism

History Facts vs. Millennials Education Failure—Ignorance of History on Victims of Communism

Ignorance of History Comes Home to Roost: Communism and Millennials

Dr. Jerry Newcombe

Part 1

To think that young people today could long for a resurrection of “full communism” just reflects how little they know about history. “History repeats itself,” writes British poet Steve Turner. “It has to. No one is listening.” ~Dr. Jerry Newcombe

In mid-December, a science editor for BuzzFeedUK, Kelly Oates, tweeted, “All I want for Christmas is full communism now.” Once this tweet was noticed, she withdrew it and issued an apology.

Victims of Communism

A month earlier, another BuzzFeedUK staffer, Blake Montgomery, had responded to a tweet from President Trump.

The president had declared November 7, 2017 as “National Day for the Victims of Communism.” Montgomery then tweeted, that “victims of Communism” was just a “white nationalist talking point.” He has since withdrawn the tweet and apologized.

The apologies notwithstanding, this shows how there is a great deal of ignorance about Communism and its less violent cousin, socialism, in our day. Millennials, who should know better, are arising who think a government-run economy is more fair and just than a market-based economy.

At D. James Kennedy Ministries, one of our television producers spoke with some young people during last year’s presidential run of Bernie Sanders, an out-of-the-closet socialist. At the time, Sanders was making great headway with millennials.

What Many Millennials Believe About the Future of Capitalism is Scary

Here are some of the comments  from some young people in South Florida. Alas, they are now typical of the views of millions of Americans:

  • “I think socialism means doing what is best in society for everyone.”
  • “Socialism is the means of production being controlled by the people. Capitalism is when other people control your means.”
  • “We have to take care of each other. We haven’t done that for a long time in this country.”

I have interviewed conservative economist Steve Moore of FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation. He told our viewers: “What really troubles me is how many young people in America today, the millennials, are graduating after eight years of grade school, four years of high school, four years of college if not more, and they think that socialism is the way we should design our economy….That [is] just so disappointing because when you go to socialist places, you see that very few people work. Everybody thinks it’s wonderful you’re going to get all these free things, but you know at some point you’ve got all the people in the wagon and nobody’s there to pull it anymore.”

What if People Praised Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party?

Could you imagine the outcry if somebody were to proclaim, “What we need is a modern Adolf Hitler”—the head of the National Socialist German Workers Party? Such ignorance and maliciousness would be rightfully condemned. Yet Lenin and Stalin and Mao, 20th century leaders of Communistic socialism, seemingly get off the hook.

As D. James Kennedy and I pointed out in our book, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? “Hitler has slain his millions. Stalin his tens of millions.”

Young people who have grown up with freedom and convenience tend to take it for granted —even to be lured by tyrannical “utopian” doctrines—because they don’t know what it’s like to be without God, and without freedom. ~C.D

Why Young Adults need to know the Truth about Judeo-Christian Heritage and Freedom of Religion

 

Alert Warning to America: Threat of Communism Real Today, warns Survivor

Alert Warning to America:

Threat of Communism Real Today, warns Survivor

Wake Up America! Warnings from a Survivor of Communism

 

by Dr. Jerry Newcombe

She reached out to me through Facebook—to commend me for a recent column I had written about how Communism, despite its deadly track record, seems to be gaining some support among the young and naïve of the West.~ Dr. Jerry Newcombe

 

“It was a ‘Prisonland’ because everything about us was supervised. The government wanted to make sure that we didn’t have any knowledge about the outside world. We were surrounded by the Iron Curtain. I remember my parents being very, very submissive. They were ‘politically correct’ outside of home, but whispering their feelings inside of home.” ~Virginia Prodan

 

Lenin, communist tyrant

“I should be dead. Buried in an unmarked grave in Romania. Obviously, I am not. God had other plans.” So declares a lady who grew up under Communism.

Her name is Virginia Prodan. I had not heard of her until she reached out to me through Facebook—to commend me for a recent column I had written about how Communism, despite its deadly track record, seems to be gaining some support among the young and naïve of the West.

I have come to learn her story, to read her book, and to interview her on the radio. She has an important message for our time, when religious freedom is at risk.

She described the Communist regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu thus: “I called that land a land of lies and a ‘Prisonland’ because we were not allowed to criticize or even to ask questions about the government or his regime.”

She adds, “It was a ‘Prisonland’ because everything about us was supervised. The government wanted to make sure that we didn’t have any knowledge about the outside world. We were surrounded by the Iron Curtain. I remember my parents being very, very submissive. They were ‘politically correct’ outside of home, but whispering their feelings inside of home.”

Christian Persecution

One of her clients was the victim of anti-Christian persecution and difficult circumstances. However, through all he suffered, he managed to maintain his internal peace and joy. The barrister said to him in effect, “I want what you have.” So he invited her to church—not a common experience in those days.

When Prodan was in the church, the pastor got up and read the statement from Jesus (John 14:6): “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

She writes in her memoir, Saving My Assassin (Tyndale, 2016), “Did I hear right? Someone was claiming to be ‘the truth’? The woman next to me handed me a Bible opened to John 14:6. I read the verse myself and then listened carefully. As the pastor continued to describe the truth of Jesus Christ, I felt as though he were speaking directly to me, that the Bible verses he was sharing were written specifically for me. Could it really be this simple?”

Led to Christianity

Her heart was touched, despite the atheistic government doing everything it could to discourage any kind of Christian influence in Romania.

She writes, “For the first time in my life, everything made sense. I had spent years searching for the truth, but I had been looking in the wrong places—law school, the government, the justice system—when the answer was here all along. I suddenly realized that the truth was not something that came from law books, but from God himself: the Creator of the universe—my Creator; the source of all life, peace, and happiness. When the pastor asked if anyone wanted to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, I accepted his invitation. It was the culmination of a lifelong search that went back as far as I could remember.” (pp. 108-109).

After the service, they even gave her a copy of the forbidden book: “‘You do realize,’ the pastor cautioned, ‘that the Romanian government can arrest you for having a Bible in your home.’ I was vaguely aware of this fact, but I had never really given it much thought—until now.” (p. 109).

Converts Her Would-Be Assassin

Virginia Prodan went on to defend Christians in the courts of Romania, and eventually was targeted for assassination by the Communist authorities, whose views were summed up by the Romanian police one day: “You need church? We will educate you on that! Ceauşescu is god, not that lunatic [Jesus]” (p. 154).

But the Lord saved the very man sent to kill her, when Prodan shared the gospel with him while he held her at gunpoint. In her book, she even has a chapter written by that man.

He writes, “I was a man empowered to commit unthinkable atrocities upon people. But then God, in his amazing love, sent me to her office. My intention was to kill Virginia, but God’s intention was to breathe life into me through her” (pp. 290-291).

Eventually, because of pressure from the West, Virginia Prodan and family were able to emigrate from Romania, a year before Ceauşescu was judged by his own people and executed on Christmas day 1989.

Defends Freedom of Religion

Today in America, she is an attorney for God (affiliated with the Alliance Defending Freedom), fighting for Christian liberties in the courts of America and in the courts of public opinion. She and her would-be assassin offer a timeless warning to those who think Communism and the war against religious freedom have something positive to offer.

Young people who have grown up with freedom and convenience tend to take it for granted —even to be lured by tyrannical “utopian” doctrines—because they don’t know what it’s like to be without God, and without freedom.~C.D.

Why Young Adults need to know about Judeo-Christian Heritage and Freedom of Religion

 

https://barbwire.com/2018/03/15/wake-up-america-warnings-survivor-communism/

 

Pro-Life Definition: Children are Blessings; Planned Parenthood Facts

Pro-Life Definition:

Children are Blessings;

President Donald Trump: “Children are Blessings From Our Creator, Endowed From Conception With Human Dignity

In a March 29, 2018, Presidential Proclamation, Pres. Donald Trump declared April as “Child Abuse Prevention Month,” that referenced children from “the moment of conception.”

Included in the proclamation was the following statement:

We must always remember that all children are blessings from our Creator. They are endowed from conception with value, purpose, and human dignity. They are a source of unmatched joy, and they represent our Nation’s future. It is thus our civic and moral responsibility to help every child experience a childhood free from abuse and mistreatment, guiding them toward a future full of hope and promise.

“Child abuse is a horrendous problem in our nation, which has been worsened by the callous practice of abortion. When one can kill a baby for any reason prior to birth, it devalues the lives of all children,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “The least we must do is stop tax payers from funding Planned Parenthood, the largest child abuser there is. That will go a long way toward restoring a respect for all human life – born and unborn – in our nation.”

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

The proclamation: an excerpt:

Every child is a precious and unique gift who deserves the security of a loving and nurturing home.  When supported by encouraging families and safe, strong communities, all children have the chance to reach their full potential and access the unlimited opportunities that our great Nation has to offer.  To realize this truth, we must dedicate ourselves to the noble cause of protecting and caring for our children.

National Child Abuse Prevention Month is an annual reminder that not every home is a haven of acceptance and unconditional love.  Too often, childhood is marred with pain, violence, neglect, and abuse, which can have lifelong psychological, emotional, and physical consequences.  At no fault of their own, some children are subjected to the most depraved forms of child abuse and neglect, without reprieve and, sometimes, without any knowledge that they are being maltreated.  The statistics are shocking:  a quarter of all children experience some form of child abuse or neglect in their lifetime.  The financial consequences of this depravity are dire.  By some estimates, the lifetime cost of child abuse and neglect is $124 billion per year.  The human cost — measured in lost development, potential, and flourishing — is incalculable.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 2018 as National Child Abuse Prevention Month.  I call upon all Americans to invest in the lives of our Nation’s children, to be aware of their safety and well-being, and to support efforts that promote their psychological, physical, and emotional development.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Read full proclamation here:

How to teach your child—every day—that he or she is precious to our Creator Click Here

Planned Parenthood Facts

PJ Media: Parents Stage Walkout Over Planned Parenthood’s Graphic, Violent Sex Ed in Public Schools

 Wisconsin governor signs bill banning abortion insurance coverage for state employees

Supreme Court Won’t Let David Daleiden Release More Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts

Take heart! Even though Planned Parenthood is still funded, pro-life victories are everywhere else

Here’s how Trump can defund Planned Parenthood

‘It’s time to start thinking creatively’

Here’s How to Create a Million Barack Obamas

Rush Limbaugh

OBAMA: The Obama Foundation could potentially create a platform. If I could do that effectively, then, y’know, I would create a hundred or a thousand or a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas or the next group of — of people who could —

RUSH: But he wants clones, millions of clones of him and Michelle. What about Snoop Dogg? Why not clone Snoop Dogg? How about P. Diddy? How about cloning LeBron? How about cloning Michael Jordan? How about cloning Clarence Thomas? Well, anyway, I have a solution. President Obama, you want a million more of you? You want a million more Michelle (My Belle) Obamas?

All you have to do is join the pro-life movement.

On average, 900 black babies are aborted every day in the United States, according to this website here, RTL.org. That means 2.5 million black babies were aborted during the Obama regime. You have 900 black babies a day times 365 equals 320,400 times eight equals 2,563,200, and they could each have their have their million right there plus some extras. And all it would take is for the Obamas becoming pro-life. And inside of a year, inside of one year you’d have two million more Not necessarily Obamas. But, I mean, you might have some Snoop Doggs in there.

I mean, take the good with the bad.

 

History Facts: Book Review—Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates

History Facts:

Book Review—Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates

Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates

The forgotten Barbary War that changed American history

Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger

To my dad, who died way too young, and my mom, who worked way too hard. They taught me from day one that being born in America was like winning the lottery. This story is yet more proof that they were 100 percent right. ~Brian Kilmeade

 

When Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801, America was deeply in debt, with its economy and dignity under attack. Pirates from North Africa’s Barbary Coast routinely captured American merchant ships and held the sailors as slaves, demanding ransom and tribute payments far beyond what the new country could afford.

Time to Stand Up to the Intimidation

For fifteen years, America had tried to work with the four Muslim powers (Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco) driving the piracy, but negotiation proved impossible. Realizing it was time to stand up to the intimidation, Jefferson decided to move beyond diplomacy. He sent the U.S. Navy and Marines to blockade Tripoli—launching the Barbary Wars and beginning America’s journey toward future superpower status.

Few today remember these men and other heroes who inspired the Marine Corps hymn: “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli, we fight our country’s battles in the air, on land and sea.” Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates recaptures this forgotten war that changed American history with a real-life drama of intrigue, bravery, and battle on the high seas.

Part of the reason Jefferson was motivated to shock the world by sending warships to the North African coast was that he understood in human terms the cost of piracy.

[I]n Jefferson’s time and after, Jefferson’s tough-minded approach  to securing the safety of Americans abroad prevailed—and changed the course of history. The British, Dutch, and French, who all possessed of vastly larger navies and had greater resources than the young United States, had flinched when faced with the Islamic threat, but they now followed the lead of the new nation.

The growing confidence in the nation’s military strength fueled national policy. The United States had successfully rejected the Old World’s model of complying with the pirates off the coast of Europe and Africa, and it was now bold enough to reject European interference with life on its own side of the Atlantic. 210

Monroe Doctrine

Military strength made possible an unprecedented assertion by President Monroe in his annual message of 1823. The Monroe Doctrine, as the principle he introduced came to be called, warned the European powers not to trespass on North or South American shores. Monroe vowed that any attempt to interfere with the destiny of nations in the American hemisphere would be regarded “as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” 214-215

Many men and women suffered in captivity before America’s intervention rid the world of North African piracy, but their suffering was not in vain. After centuries of piracy along the Barbary Coast, only the exercise of military strength had succeeded in ending the state-sanctioned practice of terror on the high seas. The lesson was not lost on America. The young nation gained from this chapter the courage to exercise its strength in the world, and it would remember that lesson in the future when other innocent lives were at stake. ~Brian Kilmeade, 215

Today, the war’s military legacy cannot be ignored. It saw the emergence of the U.S. Navy as a force to be reckoned with in foreign seas. It saw the American flag planted for the first time in victory on terrain outside the Western Hemisphere. So great was the war’s significance for the Marines that their hymn refers to “the shores of Tripoli,” and the Corps adopted the Mameluke sword as part of its officers’ uniforms in 1825.

Most important, here in the twenty-first century, the broader story—the great confrontation between the United States and militant Islamic states—has a new significance. 203

Teaching Youth their Biblical Heritage  Click Here

 

History Facts: Democratic Party History and Racism

History Facts:

Democratic Party History and Racism

Liberal Lies—

” [A] fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay

Brainwashing African-Americans

Exclusive: Chuck Norris reveals precisely why ‘it is time you become a Republican’

Elbert Guillory made national headlines in 2013 by abandoning the “government plantation” and party of disappointment, otherwise known as the Democratic Party.

Guillory writes: “My reason? Democrats have hijacked and enslaved black America for their own power while destroying the black community. Now I’m fighting to break those chains once and for all. That’s why my campaign, and why I sent you this ‘Little Book of Liberal Lies.’ Not only does this booklet give leftists a well-deserved tongue lashing, it also exposes the top three lies they use to keep black Americans like you in chains. … They only care about one thing: CONTROL.”

When Guillory abandoned the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans in 2013, he made national news and became public enemy No. 1 to all liberals and leftists. The reason is because they knew he destroyed their No. 1 Lie: “The lie that all Republicans are racists.”

The real history that Democrats don’t want you to know is documented well by Guillory, whom I am going to quote at length because it is so good and historically insightful:

  1. The Democratic Party created the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) after the Confederacy’s defeat in the Civil War. An estimated 3,446 black Republicans and 1,297 white Republicans were lynched by the KKK between 1882 and 1968.
  2. Jim Crow segregation laws in the South were created by Democrats looking to overturn Republican civil rights laws.
  3. Democrats supported the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that said, “a negro whose ancestors were imported into the U.S., and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen. The decision was 7-2 with all seven Democrat judges voting in favor and the Republican and Whig dissenting.
  4. Immediately after taking office in 1913, President Woodrow Wilson (D) fired most blacks who worked in the federal government and re-segregated the Treasury Department, Mail Service and the Navy.
  5. George Wallace (D) stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, fighting to keep segregation permanent.
  6. Democratic public safety commissioner Eugene Connor in Birmingham, Alabama, unleashed attack dogs and turned the fire hoses on civil rights demonstrators.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the Democrats’ racist history. As much as Democrats don’t want black Americans to know about this, they really don’t want you to know that the Republican Party is the real party of civil rights. Somehow Democrats have whitewashed history to cover up the facts.

  1. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: Slavery is a violation of the rights of man.
  2. Famous African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass calls the Republicans the “party of freedom

    Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), former slave and abolitionist broke whites’ stereotypes about African Americans in the decades prior to the U.S. Civil War. His literary and oratorical excellence, and his dignified bearing, converted many to support the abolition of slavery in the United States. 1855 portrait. (Newscom TagID: evhistorypix007462.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

    and progress”
  3. The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln – the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. Freeing the slaves was a big deal, much to the horror of Democrats. [Interestingly, commemorated this week on March 13, 1865, “with the main Rebel armies facing long odds against must larger Union armies, the Confederacy, in a desperate measure, reluctantly approves the use of black troops,” though did not free them as a result of their service.]
  4. Republicans in Congress authored the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment banning slavery while 63 percent of Democrats senators and 78 percent of Democrat House members voted against it.
  5. Ninety-four percent of Republican senators and 96 percent of Republican House members voted in favor of the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing due process of law to blacks and all Americans. All congressional Democrats voted against it.
  6. Nearly all congressional Republicans voted in favor of passing the 15th Amendment guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Democrat voted “no.”
  7. President Dwight Eisenhower (R) championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and was unanimously supported by Republicans. Democrats in the Senate filibustered it.

Now that you know the true history of the Republicans and Democrats, and who the real racists are, it is time you reevaluate all of this and become a Republican.

Or as Guillory put it in his heartfelt wish for all his black brothers and sisters: “After reading this, I pray you’ll join me today by rejecting your modern day slave masters and abandon the Democratic plantation and party of disappointment while turning to the true party of freedom – the party of Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.”

 

Understanding Biblical Worldview for Youth  Click Here

 

 

 

http://www.wnd.com/2018/03/brainwashing-african-americans/

History Facts about America, Geography of Western Hemisphere: Where Name of America came from

History Facts about America:

Where Name of America came from

Amerigo Vespucci

Amerigo Vespucci (Italian pronunciation: [ameˈriːɡo vesˈputtʃi]; March 9, 1454 – February 22, 1512) was an Italian explorer, financier, navigator and cartographer who first demonstrated in about 1502 that Brazil and the West Indies did not represent Asia’s eastern outskirts as initially conjectured from Columbus’ voyages, but instead constituted an entirely separate landmass hitherto unknown to people of the Old World. In 1505 he became a citizen of Spain.[1]

Colloquially referred to as the New World, this second super continent came to be termed “Americas“, deriving its name from Americus, the Latin version of Vespucci’s first name.[2][3]

At the invitation of king Manuel I of Portugal, Vespucci participated as observer in several voyages that explored the east coast of South America between 1499 and 1502. On the first of these voyages he was aboard the ship that discovered that South America extended much further south than previously thought.

History Facts: Charles Darwin, Hitler, and Tragic Effects of Evolutionary Theory

History Facts:

Charles Darwin, Hitler, and Tragic Effects of Evolutionary Theory

Favoured Races

Carolyn Reeves

Following are excerpts from article co-authored by Carolyn Reeves and Marni Kendricks at the site Underground Paradigm

Darwin_headerFor a moment let us first consider the world-wide influence of a scientist named Charles Darwin. Any high school student in any public school in America has studied about the “Father of Evolution” and many have fully accepted and praised his life’s work. For me, there is something that doesn’t seem quite right about Darwin’s famous book, Origin of the Species. If you read the full title of the book, you may begin to see the problem: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

darwin-evolution-humanismYears before Darwin got around to publishing this book, he had come to believe that humans evolved over millions of years by natural selection in the same way he thought other animals had evolved. He concluded that the first humans were not a distinct creation of God, but rather a product of evolution from ape-like animals that produced different species of humans.

Darwin wrote another book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, in 1871. He wrote a follow up book, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, in 1872. In these books he tried to show that man was just another primate. He tried to show that humans were similar to “higher” animals in physical characteristics, emotions, and intelligence. This was his chief argument for concluding that humans had evolved from other animals.

darwinism2-hitlerHitler began reading books and articles by extreme followers of Darwin as a young boy. By the time he had become an adult, he had read a large number of materials on human evolution in which a frequent conclusion was that the time had come to take more control of human evolution. These authors proposed that there should be policies to help the superior races increase in numbers and the inferior races to decrease in numbers

The tiny poisonous seeds sown by both intellectuals and uneducated racists led to unthinkable beliefs and actions in the 20th century. Unfortunately, these lingering racial beliefs seem to pervade our culture in a way that most people do not recognize.

adam-and-eve-offering-sacrificesThe absolute tragedy of these beliefs that have adversely affected millions is that they are not true! All humans–past, present, and future—are part of the same human race. Fuegians from South America, Aborigines from Australia, and slaves from Africa were never subhuman. These people may have been forced into primitive living conditions at some point. If you have ever seen the TV series, Naked and Afraid, consider how perfectly rational humans would have great difficulty surviving if they were isolated in a remote area without metal tools, weapons, and basic supplies. However, they, like all humans, were descendants of the first two original humans, Adam and Eve—not from a Common Ancestor randomly birthed in a warm pond. Stated in Biblical language, all people are of one blood and are descended from Eve.

 

Almighty God purposely planned, designed, and created humans in His image. And because of this fact, every person deserves to be treated with respect. There is no justification for treating anyone with contempt because of his or her race.

One of the major planks of any person’s worldview is finding a satisfactory answer to the question, “Who am I?” Bible-believing Christians would probably include something like this in their answer: “I am a child of God, created in His image, and I relate to all other humans as people who were created in His image”

quote-dec-independenceThomas Jefferson, along with the signers of the Declaration of Independence, believed that God created all humans with the same basic rights, because all humans are made in the image of God. The worldview accepted by most Americans is incorporated in Jefferson’s elegant words found in the Declaration of Independence, “. . . it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . .”

Notes:

The tragic history of the effects of Darwin’s proposal of human evolution has been documented in Evolution’s Fatal Fruit by Tom DeRosa with a forward by Dr. D. James Kennedy (available from www.CreationStudies.org).

Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview by Jerry Bergman is a thoroughly documented book on Hitler’s quest to produce a superior race. Hitler’s worldview beliefs, along with the main scientists, academians, doctors, and leaders who supported him, are discussed and analyzed.

http://www.undergroundparadigm.com/favoured-races/

 

US Constitution Series 3 Founding Fathers Quotes: Benjamin Franklin on Good Leadership

Dinner Time Topics for Thursday

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

From The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

Declaration_independenceUS Constitution Series 3: Founding Fathers Quotes on Good Leadership

NOTE: The following quotations show how the Founding Fathers knew by personal experience, as well as the study of history, how human nature defaults to tyranny, corruption, and plunder in government if leadership is devoid of virtue. Today we are seeing the fulfillment of their sad predictions.

Principle #3

The most promising method of securing a virtuous and morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders

“…thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness [unjust gain]; and place such over them, to be rulers …” ~Exodus 18:21

A favorite scripture of the day was Proverbs 29:2, which says: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

Samuel Adams

But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.

Thomas Jefferson

It would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society.

John Adams

johnadams2Politics are the divine science, after all. How is it possible that any man should ever think of making it subservient to his own little passions and mean private interests? Ye baseborn sons of fallen Adam, is the end of politics a fortune, a family, a gilded coach, a train of horses, and a troop of livery servants, balls at Court, splendid dinners and suppers? Yet the divine science of politics is at length in Europe reduced to a mechanical system composed of these materials.

I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

Making Public Office an Honor Rather than a Position of Profit

As Benjamin Franklin traveled in Europe, he noted that there was a violent struggle for appointments to public office because they paid so well. He felt this was a serious mistake.

In the early history of the United States, community offices were looked upon as stations of honor granted to the recipients by an admiring community, state, or nation. These offices were therefore often filled by those who performed their services with little or no compensation. Even when an annual salary of $25,000 was provided in the Constitution for President Washington, he determined to somehow manage without it. He did the same thing while serving as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces during the Revolutionary War. Not all could afford to do this, but it was considered the proper procedure when circumstances permitted it. (Skousen, pp. 64-65)

Franklin’s Address to the Constitutional Convention

225px-BenFranklin2Franklin fervently hoped this policy could be perpetuated in America from generation to generation. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he gave a discourse on the need to fix the course of American public service so that it would always attract men of public virtue and repel scoundrels scrambling for a soft job. He said:

Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effect. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall at the same time be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.

Haggling for High-Salaried Public Offices Was Repugnant to the Founders

Franklin had seen enough of the world to make a general observation to the Constitutional Convention which the members could not help but hear with deep respect. The men at the Convention were there at great personal sacrifice; some, like Madison, on borrowed money. Franklin warned that high salaries for government offices are the best way to attract scoundrels and drive from the halls of public office those men who possess true merit and virtue. (Skousen, p.66)

Benjamin Franklin

And what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will NOT be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers. And these, too, will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation; for their vanquished competitors, of the same spirit, and from the same motives, will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.

Benjamin Franklin’s Prophecy: the road to Government Plunder

 

Sir, though we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be of long continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for proposed augmentations [increases]; and there will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers, that the rulers may be able in return to give more to them.

Hence, as history informs us, there has been in every state and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed, the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning princes or enslaving of the people.

Generally, indeed, the ruling power carries its point, and we see the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans, and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure.

Principle 2: Virtuous and Moral People

Principle 4: The Role of Religion

History Facts: What the Constitution Really says about race and Slavery

History Facts:

What the Constitution Really says about race and Slavery

David Azarrad

Daily Signal, Heritage Foundation

keyIn no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote.

lincoln-statueOne hundred and fifty years ago this month, the 13th Amendment officially was ratified, and with it, slavery finally was abolished in America. The New York World hailed it as “one of the most important reforms ever accomplished by voluntary human agency.”

The newspaper said the amendment “takes out of politics, and consigns to history, an institution incongruous to our political system, inconsistent with justice and repugnant to the humane sentiments fostered by Christian civilization.”

With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.

constitution1Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.

While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution.

Such arguments have unsettling implications for the health of our republic. They teach citizens to despise their founding charter and to be ashamed of their country’s origins. They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence. And they foster alienation and resentment among African-American citizens by excluding them from our Constitution.

The received wisdom in this case is wrong. If we turn to the actual text of the Constitution and the debates that gave rise to it, a different picture emerges. The case for a racist, pro-slavery Constitution collapses under closer scrutiny.

Race and the Constitution

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.

The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).

Slavery and the Constitution

Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).

Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.

Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:

Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.

Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), former slave and abolitionist broke whites' stereotypes about African Americans in the decades prior to the U.S. Civil War. His literary and oratorical excellence, and his dignified bearing, converted many to support the abolition of slavery in the United States. 1855 portrait. (Newscom TagID: evhistorypix007462.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), former slave and abolitionist broke whites’ stereotypes about African Americans in the decades prior to the U.S. Civil War. His literary and oratorical excellence, and his dignified bearing, converted many to support the abolition of slavery in the United States. 1855 portrait. (Newscom TagID: evhistorypix007462.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.

Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.

Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote.

One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.

It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”

Congress and the Slave Trade

ThomasJeffersonIn his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).

In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.

Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.

The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.

Congress and the Expansion of Slavery

Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.

Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.

Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).

In no way could the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.

As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.

Slavery in the Existing States

As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.

In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.

While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.

There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.

James Madison

James Madison

The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.

This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.

In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.

This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.

 

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/28/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery/