History Facts: 10 Reasons to accept Jesus Christ’s Resurrection

History Facts:

10 Reasons to accept Jesus Christ’s Resurrection

10 Reasons to Accept the Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Fact

By Brian Chilton

When I left the ministry due to my skepticism, one of the factors involved in my departure concerned the reliability of the New Testament documents and the resurrection of Jesus. The folks from the Jesus Seminar had me second-guessing whether I could trust what the New Testament said and if I could truly accept the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In July of 2005, my life changed. I entered the Lifeway Christian Bookstore in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and read three books that changed my life more than any other book outside the Bible. I discovered Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, Josh McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and McDowell’s A Ready Defense. I discovered that there are many reasons for accepting the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical fact.

Through the years, the evidence has increasingly mounted for the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. This article will provide 10 of the most fascinating arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. This list is not exhaustive and my dealings with each argument is extremely brief. Nevertheless, I hope this list will provide a starting point for you to consider the authenticity of Jesus’s resurrection.

  1. The First Eyewitnesses were Women. The first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women. All the Gospels note that the first individuals to discover the tomb empty were women. Matthew notes that “After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb…The angel told the women, ‘Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the play where he lay” (Matthew 28:1, 5-6).[1] Women were not held in high esteem. In Greco-Roman culture, a woman’s testimony was not admissible in court. In Jewish circles, it took the testimony of two women to equate that of one man. If one were to invent a story, the last people one would place as the first witnesses would have been women, unless it were otherwise true.
  2. Minimal Facts Concerning the Resurrection. Gary Habermas has popularized the so-called minimal facts argument for the resurrection. The minimal facts are those things that are accepted by nearly all New Testament scholars. The minimal facts are “1. Jesus died by crucifixion. 2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. 3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed. 4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed. 5. The tomb was empty.” [2] These facts are nearly universally accepted by New Testament scholars, including liberals.
  3. Transformation of the Early Disciples. As noted in the minimal facts, James, the brother of Jesus, was changed from a skeptic to a believer because of the resurrection. James along with his brothers did not believe in Jesus during Jesus’s early ministry (see John 7:5). However, Jesus appeared to James (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) and James became a leader in the early Jerusalem church. His death is recorded by Josephus.[3] Paul is another example of one who was completely transformed by the resurrection of Jesus. Paul had been a persecutor of the church. After witnessing the risen Jesus, Paul became a proclaimer for the church.
  4. Embarrassing Details of the Resurrection. Historically speaking, embarrassing details add veracity to a historical claim. The fact that women were the first witnesses, that a member of the Sanhedrin (the same Sanhedrin that executed Jesus) had to give Jesus a proper burial, and that the disciples were fearful and fled all serve as embarrassing factors for the resurrection account.
  5. Willingness to Die for What Was Known. Many people will die for what they believe to be true. But no one will die for something they erroneously invented. The disciples knew if they were telling the truth. Yet, one finds that the disciples were willing to die for what they knew to be true. Stephen died by stoning (Acts 7:54-60), James of Zebedee died by the sword at the hands of Herod (Acts 12:2), James the brother of Jesus died,[4] and Peter and Paul died at the hands of Nero.[5]
  6. Documentary Evidence. The documentary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is quite good. The historian seeks to find how many primary and secondary sources[6] can be gathered for an event to determine the event’s historicity. Concerning primary sources, the resurrection has Matthew’s account, John’s account, and Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15, including the additional references by James (if one accepts that James wrote the letter attributed to him) and Jude. The following are secondary sources for the resurrection: Luke, Mark, Clement of Rome, and to a lesser degree Ignatius and Irenaeus.
  7. Circumstantial Evidence. Douglas Groothius notes that circumstantial evidence for the historicity of the resurrection is “namely, the practice of the early church in observing baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Sunday worship.”[7] Baptism is based upon the analogy of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper is a symbol of Christ’s sacrificial death. In addition, it is quite odd that faithful Jews would move their worship from a Friday evening into Saturday to a Sunday morning unless something major had occurred on a Sunday morning. The major Sunday morning event was Jesus’s resurrection.
  8. The Missing Motive. J. Warner Wallace has noted in his lectures and books that when a conspiracy is formed, three motivating factors are behinds such a move—power, greed, and/or lust.[8] The disciples would hold no power behind claiming the resurrection as history. They were running around while often being threatened by the Jewish and Roman authorities. As far as greed, they taught that one should not desire earthly possessions, but spiritual ones. Lust was not a factor, either. They taught celibacy before marriage and marital fidelity after marriage. In fact, N. T. Wright notes in his classic book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, that the disciples had no theological motivation behind claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead as they were anticipating a military hero and a final resurrection at the end of time. What motivating factors existed for these disciples to invent such a story? None! The only reason the disciples taught the resurrection of Jesus was because Jesus’s resurrection had occurred.
  9. Enemy Attestation of the Resurrection. Historically speaking, if one holds enemy attestation to an event, then the event is strengthened. When one considers the claims of the authorities that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:11-15), the testimony of the resurrection is strengthened. The early belief that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus is strengthened by the discovery of the Nazareth Inscription that orders capital punishment for anyone who steals a body from a tomb.[9] In addition, several refences to Jesus and his resurrection include citations from Josephus,[10] Tacitus,[11] and Suetonius[12] among others (including the Babylonian Talmud).
  10. Multiple Post-Resurrection Eyewitnesses. Finally, there is multiple eyewitness testimony pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus. Several people had seen Jesus alive for a period of 40 days. The eyewitnesses include Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18), the women at the tomb accompanying Mary (Matthew 28:1-10), the Roman guards (Matthew 28:4), the Eleven disciples (John 21), the two men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), an indeterminate number of disciples (Matthew 28:16-20); over five-hundred disciples (1 Corinthains 15:6), to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) and to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). I am certain that there were many other witnesses that are unnamed.


Reason number 11: Additional witnesses in the Western Hemisphere

Translation of records of a Christian colony in ancient America documents a visit of the resurrected Jesus Christ to Central America, and that 2500 people witnessed His visit, and felt the scars in His hands and feet. ~C.D.


How to help strengthen the faith of the rising generation



Many other evidences could be given for the resurrection of Jesus. Thinking about the methods of history, one must understand that there is a reason why American accept the first President of the United States as George Washington and not Spongebob Squarepants. History backs up the claim that Washington was the first President. In like manner, history backs up the reality of Jesus’s resurrection. Now the question is this: what will you do with such information? Some will try to ignore the event. Some will try to dismiss it. Others will acknowledge the factual nature of the event and worship Jesus as the risen Lord. It is my prayer that you will do the latter.

See how you can draw your family closer to God in these troubled times



[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 48-50, 64-69.

[3] Josephus, Antiquities XX.200.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Eusebius, Church History XXV.5.

[6] Primary sources are documents written by eyewitnesses. Secondary sources are documents written by individuals who know eyewitnesses. For instance, my grandfather was an eyewitness to the biggest naval battle in World War II history. From the information my dad gathered from him, he would be a secondary source, whereas my grandfather would have been a primary source.

[7] Douglas Groothius, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove; Nottingham, UK: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2011), 553-554.

[8] See J. Warner Wallace, “Rapid Response: I Think the Disciples Lied About the Resurrection,” Cold-case Christianity.com (October 17, 2016), retrieved April 11, 2017, http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/rapid-response-i-think-the-disciples-lied-about-the-resurrection/.

[9] See http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/The-Nazareth-Inscription-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx#Article.

[10] Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1.

[11] Tacitus, Annals XV.

[12] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars-Claudius 25 and Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars-Nero 16.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ppUPKK


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


History Heroes: Immigration Quotes

History Heroes:

Immigration Quotes

reagan2resizeA nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation. ~Ronald Reagan

Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have from for but one flag, the American flag . . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language . . . and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. ~Theodore Roosevelt, 1919


Founders’ Wisdom

America’s Founders were joined in purpose: to pursue and protect individual liberty. But due to the left’s decades-long obsession with multiculturalism—because they find every other culture superior to ours—the unique, unified, successful American culture is being replaced by dysfunctional Third World attitudes. ~Rush Limbaugh

jeffersontyrannygovMay not our government be more homogenous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of a half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. ~Thomas Jefferson, 1787

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass. . .it ha served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. ~Alexander Hamilton, 1802

The safety of a republic depends essentially on  the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” ~Alexander Hamilton, 1802

alexanderhamiltonForeigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments. . .The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend. . .to confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency. ~Alexander Hamilton

History Facts: Church vs. State and the Leviathan Progressive Movement

History Facts:

Church vs. State and the Leviathan Progressive Movement

Part 3

The Leviathan state arises

Ed Vitagliano

afa-government-leviathan2For more than 100 years, the secular progressive movement has been quietly overturning the foundational principles of the Founding Fathers, and replacing them with a view of mankind rooted in evolutionary materialism.

The birth of progressivism in America (1880-1920) occurred in an era when rapid changes were overtaking the nation, resulting from the Industrial Revolution and a burgeoning economy rooted in capitalism.

As a result, progressives – also known as secular humanists – believed science was the only discipline capable of protecting and directing human society, and government must be filled with bureaucrats who use science to run the nation. In their view, changes within modern societies would be so great and the challenges so immense, only a country run by an expert class could manage to direct progress.

Government – limited or limitless?

Therefore, progressives believed such an undertaking required an unlimited government with unlimited power. Naturally, such a government should demonstrate a valid need for expanding its power, into the deeper recesses of society, but rapid changes of modern life often made such explanations difficult.

“The exigencies of modern industrial and urban life have forced the state to intervene at so many points where an immediate individual interest is difficult to show,” said political science professor and influential progressive Charles Merriam.

An adviser to several U.S. presidents, Merriam asserted this as he explained the views of his fellow progressives in his 1903 work, A History of American Political Theories. The American people, he said, would just have to assume “that the state acts for the general welfare.”

Merriam immediately admitted, however, that there really is no line the state should not cross. “It is not admitted that there are no limits to the action of the state,” he said, “but on the other hand, it is fully conceded that there are no ‘natural rights’ which bar the way.”

However, the Constitution was an obstacle for these secular humanists, since it was intended to act as a brake on government power. In fact, the entire Bill of Rights was added because some states would not ratify the Constitution without clear and substantial limitations to government power.

The ‘living’ Constitution

Of course, the founders understood that the Constitution would have to be changed from time to time, and so they included a process by which the document could be amended.

However, it was a slow and often laborious process – a problem for progressives. Thomas G. West, professor of politics at Hillsdale College, said in The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, “A written constitution that is hard to change becomes an impediment when the government seeks to assert a new vision of social justice, one that requires increased control over what was once regarded as the private sphere.”

So secular humanists devised a new concept – the “living” Constitution. Matthew Spalding, associate vice president of both Hillsdale College and the Allan P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, said, “Since the progressives could not get rid of the ‘old’ Constitution, … they invented the idea of a ‘living’ Constitution that would be flexible and pliable, capable of ‘growth’ and adaptation in changing times.”

Many Americans might think this idea is a recent one, but it is more than a century old. President Woodrow Wilson, one of the most noteworthy among early progressives, said in a campaign speech in 1912:

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All the progressives ask or desire is permission – in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word – to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle. …Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence. …

The state as monster

madisontyrannydefineThe Bible speaks of the “leviathan” as a literal animal, alternately like a crocodile, serpent, or some sort of monstrous sea creature. But Leviathan was also considered to be a dragon, however the biblical writers might have conceived of such a beast. Many commentators believe that the image of the dragon Leviathan came to symbolize great political powers organized against God or His people.

Thomas Hobbes, one of the most famous political philosophers of the 1600s, used Leviathan as a symbol for the all-powerful state, raised up by men to protect them from the chaos and danger of nature.

In analyzing the idea of the all-powerful state in 1938 – as the rise of a Nazified Germany cast its shadow across Europe – German political theorist Carl Schmitt examined the symbol of Leviathan and approved of it:

Hobbes’ Leviathan … is the mortal god who brings to man peace and security. Because of this … his Leviathan demands unconditional obedience. There exists no right of resistance to him, neither by invoking a higher nor a different right, nor by invoking religious reasons and arguments. He alone punishes and rewards. Based on his sovereign power, he alone determines by law, in questions of justice, what is right and proper and, in matters pertaining to religious beliefs, what is truth and error.

This was a trade-off that progressives were willing to make – safety and progress under the tutelage of the Leviathan state. Of course, the secular humanists would be at the controls of that all-powerful state.

Rights granted by state decree

This represented a tectonic shift beneath the edifice that was the American republic. The founders believed the words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” Progressives dismissed these founding ideals. Leviathan would determine how everyone would live and what rights they would be allowed to exercise.

“In speaking of natural rights, therefore, it is essential to remember that these alleged rights have no political force whatsoever, unless recognized and enforced by the state,” Merriam said.

Likely, most Americans find it hard to believe that progressives believe what Merriam so tersley stated. Secularists not only believe there is no God, but that we have no natural rights. Only the state exists.

One only has to remember, for example, that American children were once allowed to pray routinely in schools and see the Ten Commandments posted on the walls. Nativity scenes were common on public grounds during the Christmas season. High school football games and city council meetings began with an opening prayer.

judeo-christian2-10-commandmentsSuch things are rare today. And when progressives discover their practice, they are often shut down by legal action. What happened? Didn’t the founders state clearly that religious expression could not be infringed by the government? Yes, but because progressive ideas had so permeated the nation’s law schools in the first half of the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court had no problem dispensing with these “natural rights.” Without a single precedent, the high court created new standards by which it could begin the process of scrubbing away the free exercise of religion. Leviathan simply decreed that it would be so.

Still, we are not yet under Schmitt’s dictatorial state. Not yet. There is only one course of action for people who do not wish to grant to Leviathan such all-encompassing power: Do something.

Let every school board demand that children be taught the views of the Founding Fathers. Let all parents teach their children the principles of liberty. Let Christians in every church preach the gospel to every creature. Let every family become a church where God is worshiped. Let every Christian pray for the reversal of our fortunes, that “the desolations of many generations” might be repaired (Isaiah 61:4).

Let Leviathan once more be placed in chains.

Part 1

History Facts: Rise of Progressive  Movement  vs. Natural Rights


Part 2

History Facts: Progressive Movement, Bureaucratic Control vs. Constitutional Republic



Biblical Worldview: American Repentance and Revival key to Blessings from God

Biblical Worldview:

American Repentance and Revival key to Blessings from God

Jonathan Cahn calls out Obama, gives charge to Trump

Messianic rabbi stuns at Inaugural Prayer Breakfast

keyold‘If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear from heaven, I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land.’ 2 Chronicles 7:14

His last speech at the annual gathering in the nation’s capital was called “the most important speech given in modern American history.”

biblical-worldview2-christianBut the tone could not have been more different when Jonathan Cahn returned to the Inaugural Prayer Breakfast, held just before Donald J. Trump succeeded Barack Obama as commander in chief. The messianic rabbi, whom some have called “America’s Prophet” and the author of sensational bestsellers, including the new devotional “The Book Of Mysteries,” hailed the rise of Trump as an example of God’s will.

Warning the audience his message would be “true” rather than “politically correct,” Cahn reminded them it is God who decides who rules nations and empires.

“We’ve come from every part of this land to stand before the Almighty, before whom kings and kingdoms rise and fall, and nations ascend and descend, Who alone remains the same yesterday, today and forever,” he intoned.

The Bible teacher presented a grim image of the Obama era and spoke of the remarkable victory of the new president as a sign of God’s hand in the affairs of men.

George Washington: no freedom without God and bible

George Washington: no freedom without God and bible

“America stood at the threshold,” he said. “In the face of an election that threatened to establish for ages the edicts of apostasy and the ways of godlessness, and an open war against the people and gospel of God. And then there was Donald Trump. There had never been a candidate like him. Whatever it was that one was never supposed to do while running for president, he did them all.”

Cahn’s remarks were met with applause and laughter. But after all, what else could explain Trump’s unprecedented victory except for God?

“Poll after poll foretold a sure Democratic victory if not a landslide,” Cahn said. “The Democrats prepared for victory. The Republicans prepared for defeat … but then something happened. And nobody was sure what exactly what. The election took a strange turn and whatever everybody was sure couldn’t happen, happened. The media was in shock. The Democrats were in shock. Obama was in shock. The Republicans were in shock. Obama was in shock. And it appears Donald Trump couldn’t believe it happened, either.

“But as it was written in ancient times, it is no less true to this day: ‘As high as the heavens are above the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways. And My thoughts than your thoughts.’ And as we can bear witness today in the city of Washington, on January 20, 2017, with God, nothing, shall be, impossible.”

Cahn framed Trump’s triumph as part of a continuing national drama that has defined America’s history, the same struggle between faith and apostasy that shaped the history of Israel. He spoke of Israel and the United States as the only nations in history founded “solely for the glory of God.”

Mayflower-compact-hero2-ACahn cited John Winthrop, the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony who prophesied if America followed the ways of God, the Lord would “command a blessing” upon a people who were to be “as a city upon a hill.”

Indeed, explained Cahn, that is precisely what happened.

“Those who came to these shores four centuries ago dedicated the new civilization to God and consecrated it to His will and purposes,” Cahn said. “America was to be a city on a hill, a holy commonwealth. Its first governments were established in the name of Jesus and for the glory of God. Its public school system was founded for the purpose of teaching the Word of God. And as Winthrop had prophesied, God had commanded a blessing. America would become the most blessed, the most powerful and the most prosperous nation the world had ever seen, a praise and glory in the earth.”

american-exceptionalism1Yet as with ancient Israel, America turned away from God, said Cahn, driving “Him out of our culture, out of our government, out of our lives and [banning] Him from our public squares.”

Instead of honoring the God of Israel, Cahn charged, America honored the idols of “carnality and gain, and gods of materialism and licentiousness.”

Take the first step on a journey which will transform your life in 2017. The keys to spiritual knowledge are presented as you embark on an incredible yearlong quest in “The Book of Mysteries,” the latest can’t miss book by messianic rabbi Jonathan Cahn. Available now at the WND Superstore.

The administration of Barack Obama, said Cahn, was the culmination of this process.

Obama legacy

“In the past years eight years, America’s spiritual fall and moral descent has both deepened and accelerated,” he said. “The present [Obama] administration has led this nation to champion the killing of the unborn, and not only within its own borders, but in that of other nations across the world. The present administration has labored to strike down the standards and order ordained by God concerning man and woman and marriage, not only within these borders, but around the world.”

Cahn to Obama:

Speaking directly to Obama, in the last hour of his presidency, Cahn asked the outgoing president: “If you overturn the edicts of God, should you be surprised that your own edicts will now be overturned? And if you strike down the precepts of God, will not your own precepts be struck down?”

“Under the [Obama] administration,” Cahn said, “relations between the United States and Israel have been brought to their lowest point in the history of the two nations. And the administration’s parting gift to the Jewish nation was to abandon it at the United Nations, to allow and even foster a resolution declaring that Israel’s ancient holy city Jerusalem, belonged not to Israel, but was, quote, ‘Palestinian territory.’ In this way too, the present administration was waging war against the Word of God.”

windowGiven all this, Cahn suggested it is not surprising God “intervened” to essentially nullify Obama’s entire legacy. Yet this does not mean America is saved. The election is not the answer, Cahn said, but a window in which the answer can come. America is being given a chance.

“In the days of Israel’s apostasy, when the people were warring against His ways, God extended His mercy,” the rabbi explained. “He gave the people time to repent. So too, in the days of our apostasy, God is giving us a time to repent.”

Thus, the Trump administration should not be regarded as an unmitigated triumph. Instead, Cahn showed, it is a charge and a challenge laid before both the nation and the new chief executive. It is for American believers to fulfill what is commanded in 2 Chronicles 7:14 – to seek God’s face and turn from their wicked ways. And it is for Donald Trump, a man who has not lived the life of a believer, to now become a vessel for God.

Cahn gave a charge to the new president.

repentance2-gods-way“As you are lifted up to become the most powerful man on earth, remember always that it is the Almighty who lifts up kings to the throne, and the Almighty who removes them,” Cahn said to Trump. “Your authority comes not from man but from God, the King above all kings. Therefore, submit your life to His authority, and by His authority you shall lead. Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.

“Your life has been a vessel of your will. Now it must become the vessel of His will and His purposes. Walk in His footsteps, seek His righteousness, and follow the leading of His voice.

“Uphold His ways, and you shall be upheld. Keep His Word and you shall be kept. Give honor to His name, above all names, and your name shall be honored. Love the Lord your God, with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. If you do this, and you will arise, and you will shine, and the glory of the Lord will rise upon you.”

Such words may seem strange to those who seek secular explanations for political events. Yet after a year when nearly every political expert, every experienced strategist and every established institution was confounded and discredited, Americans are more open than ever to the simple truth at the heart of America’s destiny.

 If Americans repent and seek revival, God will answer their prayers, he said.

After all, the rabbi suggested, he already has. Just look at who is in the White House today.

quote-chronicles7“What was it that all the experts and pollsters missed?” Cahn asked. “The answer was 3,000 years old: ‘If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear from heaven, I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land.’

“For the power of prayer is stronger than kingdoms. And God is faithful. And His promises are true.”

History Facts and History Lessons: Saint Thomas Aquinas vs. Open Borders

History Facts and History Lessons:

Saint Thomas Aquinas vs. Open Borders

Why Saint Thomas Aquinas Opposed Open Borders


by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

keyEvery nation has the right to distinguish, by country of origin, who can migrate to it and apply appropriate immigration policies, according to the great medieval scholar and saint Thomas Aquinas.

thomas-aquinasIn a surprisingly contemporary passage of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas noted that the Jewish people of Old Testament times did not admit visitors from all nations equally, since those peoples closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close.

Some antagonistic peoples were not admitted at all into Israel due to their hostility toward the Jewish people.

The Law “prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews,” the scholar noted, such as the Egyptians and the Idumeans, “that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation.”

Citizens of other nations “with whom their relations had been hostile,” such as the Ammonites and Moabites, “were never to be admitted to citizenship.”

“The Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity,” Aquinas observed.

For the scholar, it seemed sensible to treat nations differently, depending on the affinity of their cultures with that of Israel as well as their historic relations with the Jewish people.

History Lessons for Today

In his remarkably nuanced commentary, Aquinas also distinguished among three types of immigrants in the Israel of the Old Testament.

First were “the foreigners who passed through their land as travelers,” much like modern day visitors with a travel visa.

Second were those who “came to dwell in their land as newcomers,” seemingly corresponding to resident aliens, perhaps with a green card, living in the land but not with the full benefits of citizenship.

A third case involved those foreigners who wished “to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship.” Even here, dealing with those who wished to integrate fully into the life and worship of Israel required a certain order, Aquinas observed. “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”

Total Integration necessary for Citizenship

illegal-immigration-difference“The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst,” Aquinas logically reasoned, “many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

In other words, Aquinas taught that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs and culture (including worship, in this case) was necessary for full citizenship.

It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own, Aquinas argued. Those who know the history of their nation and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future.

It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.

When facing contemporary problems, modern policy makers can often benefit from the wisdom of the great saints and scholars who have dealt with versions of the same issues in ages past.

Aquinas’ reflections reveal that similar problems have existed for centuries—indeed, millennia—and that distinguishing prudently between nations and cultures doesn’t automatically imply prejudice or unfair discrimination.

Sometimes, it’s just the right thing to do.

Why Saint Thomas Aquinas Opposed Open Borders

Obama Stranded Cubans—Everyone Silent

Flashback: Obama Stranded Legal Cuban Travelers in Airports in Last Week

Daniel J. Flynn

Remember earlier this month when Lily Tomlin compared America to Nazi Germany, Senator Chuck Schumer cried, and mobs chanted “No hate, no fear/Everyone is welcome here” at airports because the president blocked Cuban refugees from entering the country?

No, you don’t recall that happening? Well, me neither.

The federal government’s crackdown on immigrants, at least ones from a single country, certainly happened. But the protests didn’t. That fact that President Obama rather than President Trump issued the order surely muted the response. So, too, in a no-enemies-to-the-left manner, did the fact that the order helped a Communist prison-state tighten its grip on the inmates.

The TRUTH is:

“More than 1,000 Cuban migrants who endured months long treks across as many as 10 countries to reach the United States are marooned in Mexico, halted by the Obama administration’s decision this month to end special immigration privileges for Cubans who make it to the American border,” Frances Robles reported last week of Obama’s executive order in the New York Times.

Related Links:

Poll: Public Overwhelmingly Supports Trump Push to Limit Migration

…Ahmed: ‘Many of Us’ Muslims Welcome Extreme Vetting

Seven Inconvenient Facts About Trump’s Refugee Actions

Populist Leaders Praise Trump’s Refugee Ban as Model for Europe


History Facts: Statue of Liberty not about Immigration

History Facts:

Statue of Liberty not about Immigration

The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do with Immigration

Rush Limbaugh

statueofliberty-dec-of-independence2RUSH: It happens every time I reveal what to me is common information. I check the email, and there were a bunch of people that were shocked to learn the Statue of Liberty wasn’t about immigration. It shows you how successful left-wing-created narratives have been. The Statue of Liberty represents Libertas, Roman goddess of Liberty. She bears a torch liberty. She bears a torch and a tabula ansata. It’s a tabula that evokes the law on which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence.

That’s what words are on the Statue of Liberty, words that commemorate July 4th, 1776. A broken chain lies at the feet of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of statueofliberty3Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. So why do people think that it does? Well, there was a socialist poet. (Are poets anything other than socialists and communists?) Her name was Emma Lazarus, and her poem was called The New Colossus, and it included the lines, “Give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

That was not part of the creation of the Statue of Liberty. It was not delivered with the Statue of Liberty. It came later. The poem written by Emma Lazarus was written to help raise money for the statue’s pedestal. We had to build the pedestal, which is also a room underneath the statue. A bronze tablet bearing the Emma Lazarus poem was only put inside the pedestal in 1903. And yet there’s Lester Holt out there on NBC holding out the Statue of Liberty as a beacon to immigrants as so that’s what it was intended to be, fighting against Trump’s executive order of the weekend. They have nothing to do with immigration. Zilch.

Liberals Rewriting History

obama-rewrite-historyRUSH: I don’t want to make too big a deal about this, but I’m a stickler for reality and detail, and I hate liberal rewrites of things because it’s lies and it’s designed to create emotions in people that cause actions which are not helpful to the country. And that’s essentially what liberalism has done is feed off of and promote emotions over thought and fact. Lester Holt last night on NBC Nightly News:

“Behind me, the Statue of Liberty, which for nearly 130 years has symbolized the welcome arms of a country of immigrants,” is how he opened the program. The NBC Nightly News. However, he said, “But tonight she also stands as a symbolic flash point in a country in the midst of soul-searching over the limits of its generosity in an statueofliberty3-pedestalage of international terrorism. It’s total BS, folks. The Statue of Liberty was given to America by the French. Even now, I run into people that didn’t know that. It was donated by the French as a tribute to liberty and freedom and independence in 1886.

It was originally intended to be delivered to celebrate the centennial of the Declaration, the American Revolution. It was supposed to arrive in 1876, but it didn’t make it. It was 10 years late, or eight years late, depending on how you look at it. It was not until 1903 that they decided they needed to build the pedestal. They needed money for it, and they commissioned that poet, Emma Lazarus, to write what she wrote, and that line, of course is, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and that’s all it’s taken.

That was not part of the gift.

The statue was not intended to recognize immigration. It was intended to recognize liberty and freedom. If you think they’re intertwined, don’t be misled. Here’s Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state during the Clinton years — who stood by Bill Clinton during all of his womanizing, during all of his misogyny, during all of his reprobate behavior. Here’s Madeleine Albright standing by the guy. She was on CNN this morning. Chris Cuomo, who probably doesn’t know anything I just told you about the Statue of Liberty, said, “You’ve got the Statue of Liberty on your lapel this morning. What is the concern about the ban that you have, Madam Albright?”

rewrite-erase-historyALBRIGHT: Every part of it, Chris, because what it is is… In many ways it’s anti-American and what this country stands for. It is we are a country that has been, uh, created and, uhh, populated by people from other countries, and so, uhh, the Statue of Liberty’s message is, in fact, one of which open arms and welcoming people. And, umm, I, uh, do think that there are tears in the eyes of the statue at the moment.

RUSH: No. The statue doesn’t cry. The statue is a statue. It’s made out of bronze. It doesn’t cry. There aren’t any tears coming from the eyes of the Statue of Liberty ’cause there aren’t any eyes, statueofliberty2and the Statue of Liberty is not welcoming immigrants. What it represents is the beacon of liberty and freedom! It doesn’t say, “If you’re from a war-torn area, come on in.” We have laws that deal with that! The Statue of Liberty does not grant anybody entry into the United States of America. The Statue of Liberty does not say, “You want in? This is the way! Come right over here to Ellis Island, and we’ll send you through there.”

It’s not what it means. Now, I imagine some of you are saying, “Rush, did you get a little overboard on this?” No, folks. It may sound like I’m going a little overboard, but I’m a stickler for truth and fact here, and this is all being used to work up what is already deranged lunacy on the left. It’s fanning the flames of this stuff by furthering the misinformation and the lies that people are getting to keep that emotional flame supposedly burning in the minds and the hearts of these leftists who, in truth, are miserably unhappy.

The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do with Immigration

History Facts: Progressive Movement, Bureaucratic Control vs. Constitutional Republic

History Facts:

Progressive Movement, Bureaucratic Control vs. Constitutional Republic

Progressive Movement history Part 2

Brave new beehive

“Wilson would transform Jefferson’s ‘empire of liberty’ into a beehive,” argued First Principles. “Earlier, in his essay on public administration, Wilson justified rule by a class of experts. As drones in a beehive, men would submit to central authority.”

Ed Vitagliano

afaprogressivism-beehiveusa The American republic began with its foundation firmly anchored in God, as evidenced by Thomas Jefferson’s reference in the Declaration of Independence to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

In the brave new world of the Darwinian progressives, however, our republic would be founded on a new “g-word” – government. After all, with God out of the picture, what remains but man?

Progressives such as President Woodrow Wilson began the process of removing natural law as the foundation of our Republic at the beginning of the 20th century. They have diligently continued their work since then, for the most part outside the notice of the average citizen. (See AFA Journal, 10/16.)

Victims of human nature—Worshiping Science

At the core of secular progressivism – historically and currently – is a deep faith in science as a pristine endeavor, capable of solving most of the problems faced by mankind. Progressives believe that science is human reason unleashed to peer into the natural world and unlock its secrets; therefore, it is not politically partisan and has no cultural biases. It cannot lie.

According to John Marini, associate professor of political science at University of Nevada and senior fellow at Claremont Institute, and Ken Masugi, director of Claremont Institute, the earliest progressives (1880-1920) believed that nothing could – or should be allowed to – trump science.

“[T]he self-evident superiority of science would dispense with the necessity of metaphysics and religion,” said Marini and Masugi.

From a biblical perspective, however, progressives have erred in putting their full trust in man’s capacity for reason. According to Romans 1, humanity has a fallen nature, having plummeted into a condition of depravity by which even reason can be corrupted by a heart that suppresses the truth of God found in nature.

By dismissing the worldview of the Founding Fathers, progressives have opened themselves to the bitterest of ironies – that those who deny (fallen) human nature make themselves victims of it.

The cooperative ‘beehive’

Out of this faith in science came the progressive idea of government as an overarching human institution shepherding its people. Government was to be filled with experts wielding the tools fashioned by science as the proper instrument for the perfecting of human society.

There is no doubt that the early progressive era was a time of intense and disruptive change. However, progressive intellectuals believed the rapid changes occurring over the American landscape were so vast – and happening so swiftly – that the older constitutional regime was unequipped to cope with them.

Thomas G. West, professor of politics at Hillsdale College and author of Vindicating the Founders, said progressives believed that the “existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.”

Because of their belief in the inerrancy of science, progressives saw an expanding government bureaucracy as the best way forward through the coming challenges. Moreover, this army of bureaucrats would many times, out of necessity, circumvent the voters as the true arbiters of public policy.

wilson-socialismIn 1887, when Woodrow Wilson was a professor, he wrote an article, “The Study of Administration,” for Political Science Quarterly. In it he complained that America’s future success was “made doubtful by that besetting error of ours, the error of trying to do too much by vote.”

Wilson praised the European style of democratic governance by administrators and noted with satisfaction that that continent’s citizens could “be expected to be very docile and acquiescent in learning what things it has not a right to think and speak about imperatively.” (Emphasis in the original.)

Americans, on the other hand, tended to be “meddlesome.” Wilson said, “The cook must be trusted with a large discretion as to the management of the fires and the ovens.”

In a 1912 presidential campaign speech, Wilson, then governor of New Jersey, described the process by which he expected America to be transformed. As noted by the Heritage Foundation’s First Principles Series, Wilson likened this activity to a homeowner making improvements to his house. The political architects and engineers work gradually and patiently on the alterations to the home, Wilson declared, “until finally, a generation or two from now, the scaffolding will be taken away, and there will be the family in a great building whose noble architecture will at last be disclosed, where men can live as a single community, cooperative as in a perfected, coordinated beehive….”

For constitutionalists in 2016, who have become somewhat jaded at the incessant calls by progressives for more and bigger government, Wilson’s blunt words are chilling. He was proposing a society that seems more in line with Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World than the land of the free.

“Wilson would transform Jefferson’s ‘empire of liberty’ into a beehive,” argued First Principles. “Earlier, in his essay on public administration, Wilson justified rule by a class of experts. As drones in a beehive, men would submit to central authority.”

The America envisioned by Wilson and other progressives was nothing like the republic established by the nation’s founders.

Matthew Spalding, associate vice president of Hillsdale College and the Allan P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, said, “Thus began the most revolutionary change of the last hundred years, the massive shift of power from institutions of constitutional government to a labyrinthine network of unelected, unaccountable experts who would rule in the name of the people.”

The all-powerful state

If government were to re-fashion society, then government must, of necessity, be unlimited. Progressives saw no end to that which can be accomplished by a government filled with “experts.” As a result, their optimism sometimes approached that of a secular “new age” that echoed biblical promises of the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ.

bureaucrats-2One of the pioneers in the formative years of the progressive movement was John W. Burgess, a law professor at Columbia University and a founder of the discipline of political science in the U.S. He said that the purpose of the state is the

“perfection of humanity, the civilization of the world; the perfect development of the human reason, and its attainment to universal command over individualism; [and] the apotheosis of man.” John W. Burgess

This process of perfecting man would take time, according to influential progressive Charles Merriam, a political science professor who became an adviser to several U.S. presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his 1903 work, A History of American Political Theories, Merriam admitted that this “apotheosis” awaited the coming of the universal state. “This end can be realized, however, only when a world-state is organized, and for this, mankind is not yet ready,” he said.

Worldviews collide

Christians who have even a superficial understanding of what the Bible says is coming in the last days should feel a shiver up the spine at those words.

western-civilization1Resisting the worldview that lies underneath the progressive movement is not merely a question of Republican versus Democrat, or conservative versus liberal. Good-willed people can disagree on, say, the size of government or the extent of the welfare state. But that simple political clash occurs above the waves.

Beneath the surface there is a surge of forces, a clashing of streams that will determine the fate of Western Civilization and, perhaps, humanity itself. The progressive movement represents the latest salvo from anti-Christ rebels who believe man can attain perfection while denying God as Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.

The Founding Fathers might not all have been Christians, but they understood enough about nature – especially human nature – not to build our republic on shifting sand.

Progressives should learn from their wisdom, not reject it.

Part 1

History Facts: Rise of Progressive  Movement  vs. Natural Rights

Part 3

Rise of Leviathan State

History Facts: Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Social Conservative or Republican Party member? 10 things to know

History Facts:

Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Social Conservative or Republican Party member? 10 things to know

10 Things You Need To Know About Martin Luther King, Jr.

Aaron Bandler

martinlutherkingMonday January 16 commemorated the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., a revered civil rights hero whose activism and oratory skills were crucial in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. King would have been 88 years old today.

Here are 10 things you need to know King.

  1. King became a pastor, just like his father, Martin Luther King Sr. King attended Morehouse College at the age of 15 to study medicine and law, but decided to go the pastor route under the tutelage of Dr. Benjamin Mays, the president of the university. After earning his doctorate at Boston University, King eventually became the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL.
  2. King’s activism was largely based on the teachings of Mahatma GandhiKing was first introduced to Gandhi’s work of nonviolent resistance to evil government policies by Mays. King was eventually invited to India by the Gandhi National Memorial Fund, and declared on All India Radio: “If this age is to survive, it must follow the way of love and nonviolence that [Gandhi] so nobly illustrated in his life.” When he returned to America, King vowed “to achieve freedom for my people through nonviolent means.”
  3. King was chosen to lead the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott. The boycott was organized after Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to relinquish her seat on the bus for a white person; the boycott lasted for 381 days. The boycott caused “a severe economic strain on the public transit system and downtown business owners,” according to History.com. Gandhi’s teachings were “the guiding light” of the protest, according to King. The boycott also propelled King into the public eye for his leadership in the protest.
  4. King was arrested in 1963 for protesting against segregation. King had led protests that included sit-ins, boycotts and marches on City Hall in Birmingham, AL, and continued to lead them even after the protests were legally blocked by an injunction from an Alabama court. King was arrested and placed in solitary confinement for eight days, which led to his famous Letter From Birmingham Jail, where King eloquently articulated the case for civil disobedience MLK-quote3against immoral laws. King was eventually released on bail money after his wife called the Kennedy administration for help.
  5. King was a key figure in organizing the March on Washingtonon August 28, 1963, the place of his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Over 200,000 Americans attended the rally that day that called for equal rights for people of color, best encapsulated by King’s speech that is forever known as one of the most influential speeches in American history:

The march eventually led to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act.

  1. After the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed, King focused on protesting the Vietnam War and ending poverty. Some in the black community favored more violent means of protest after the violence of Selma, AL, prompting King to pivot toward activism on other issues. King became an ardent opponent of the Vietnam War, stating: “The war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home…We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”

King also called for a dramatic overhaul from the free market system that generates economic growth in America, as he believed in a system of democratic socialism that would have expanded the size of government much further than President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.

  1. King was assassinated in April 1968 at the age of 39. King was on the balcony of a hotel in Memphis, TN, where he was planning to support a strike organized by sanitation workers, when James Earl Ray murdered him with a rifle. Ray initially confessed to the murder of King, but then bizarrely claimed that he was being set up. Oddly enough, Ray was supported by some of King’s family members, but subsequent investigations all came to the same conclusion that Ray murdered King, and he remained in prison for the rest of his life. Ray held racist, segregationist views and a history of being a “small-time criminal” prior to murdering King. He died of kidney failure in 1998.
  2. It is not known what King’s party affiliation was, but there is evidence that he was a Republican. There is no way to know for sure, as Georgia, King’s home state, did not register voters by parties. King also never publicly endorsed candidates. However, according to Newsmax, New York Times political reporter Tom Wicker wrote in 1960 that “Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had volunteered to lead a voter registration drive among blacks, which King thought would produce many new Republican voters” and that King preferred Richard Nixon over John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election. However, King became more closely aligned with Democrats after Kennedy helped release King from jail after violating probation, while Nixon didn’t feel comfortable with pressuring the judge to change the ruling, and King certainly was an ally of Johnson when he agreed to sign civil rights legislation. As mentioned above, King certainly did support left-wing causes after the passage of civil rights legislation.

Here is a YouTube video of King defending the Republican Party:

9. King was a social conservative. 

alveda-kingDr. Alveda King, King’s niece, told CNN that her uncle “was a believer in traditional values who went on record criticizing homosexuality, defending the traditional family and opposing abortion.”

alveda-king-abortion“Martin Luther King Jr. was a preacher and a liberator,” King said. “It’s natural for what’s called conservative values to align with who he was because he was a pastor. He was not so much a fiscal conservative, but more so a moral conservative.”

Peter Myers writes at The Federalist:

His socialist sympathies and radical zeal notwithstanding, King held a variety of positions that, though reflecting the common sense of his day, would align him generally with today’s social conservatism. He maintained that to achieve its proper ends, militancy must conjoin with moderation. He insisted on careful empirical study and negotiation as preconditions of protest. He maintained that the disadvantaged must “work on two fronts” by directing their energies toward self-improvement as well as protest.

He taught that with a new era of rights come new responsibilities: “We must prepare ourselves in every field of human endeavor,” and “we must constantly stimulate our youth … to achieve excellence.” He affirmed that “the family constitutes the basic unit of the nation” and decried (in 1955!) “the tragic disintegration of the modern family.” He criticized the Aid to Families with Dependent Children welfare program for its family-dissolving effects.

Finally, above all such political considerations, he implored us to love and forgive, and to begin that effort with the recognition, born of charity and realism, that “there is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us.”

It’s only fitting then that the day commemorating King is the same day that honors religious freedom.

  1. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day officially became a holiday in 1983. The push for a holiday honoring King began shortly after his assassination, but the movement gained more popularity in 1979 through Stevie Wonder’s song “Happy Birthday.” President Ronald Reagan initially opposed the idea when he took office because it “would open the door to many other groups seeking similar holidays” and instead wanted a day of recognition for King, but Reagan did eventually sign into law legislation that created the holiday. Here is an excerpt from Reagan’s elegant speech when the holiday was signed into law:

reagan-quote-abortion“In America, in the ‘50s and ‘60s, one of the important crises we faced was racial discrimination,” Reagan said. “The man whose words and deeds in that crisis stirred our nation to the very depths of its soul was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”

Reagan added that King “awakened something strong and true, a sense that true justice must be colorblind, and that among white and black Americans, as he put it, ‘Their destiny is tied up with our destiny, and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom; we cannot walk alone.’”


10 Things You Need To Know About Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Daily Wire

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. . . . .”


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.