Last week, the headlines and TV newscasters were all screaming about the murders that took place on a college campus in Oregon. It is a tragedy of the highest order, and my deepest sympathies are extended to the families of the deceased.

This terrible act of barbarism will, of course, be another excuse for everyone from the president to local left-wing zealots to leap on the “ban guns” bandwagon. You will hear numerous reasons why guns should be banned, confiscated or forbidden to be sold to “ordinary” citizens.

There will be newscasts, talk-show hosts, newspaper columnists and even presidential demands that the Second Amendment simply be ignored or cast aside. The president, prompted by “a sense of urgency” has already issued 23 executive orders relating to gun control, completely ignoring the mandate that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, shall again be trampled underfoot by those who are demanding that guns be forbidden to private owners.

Let me be clear. I steadfastly oppose and heartedly abhor the deaths of all innocents, especially children, whether by gun violence or gang warfare in schools, churches, movie theaters or inner-city ghettoes. On the other hand, I just as steadfastly support the Second Amendment.

Why is it wrong to kill, steal or lie? What are Western laws based on? Let me remind some and inform others of a simple truth that is unfortunately ignored and seldom (if ever) taught in public schools today – the foundation of Western Civilization is Judeo-Christian morality.

In other words, the entirety of our way of life is based on principles articulated in a book most have heard of but fewer have read – the Bible. Unfortunately most people have relegated the Bible to a “religious” context and nothing could be further from the truth. (Depending on the translation, there are five or six references to religion in the Bible, and all but one are negative.)

The Bible is not about religion, but about human morality. Those who have ascribed it to, and practiced it as, a religion have totally missed the raison d’être.

The Bible articulates a series of transcendent principles designed to maximize human life. These principles are applicable to all. They work when and where they are correctly implemented. Remember, these principles were introduced to a world that was almost totally devoid of what we consider civilized” behavior. There were no universal standards of right and wrong “… every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Historical evidence supports this truth; entire civilizations no longer exist that waged wars to annihilate their enemies and were themselves wiped out.

The key element, or central issue, is the focus on the value of human life. Civilizations that do not value human life cease to exist, or become what we call “backward” societies. Go outside the reach of the Judeo-Christian influence. Examine the lifestyles and cultures of civilizations or cultures that do not honor this principle, and name those countries where floods of immigrants (legal or illegal) are pouring in.

There is a simple comprehensive solution that worked for years, saw extremely low murder rates in America and could today be easily implemented and re-established almost immediately. Properly understood and applied, almost the entire set of transcendent principles governing human behavior can be succinctly summed up in one simple statement – treat others exactly as you would have them treat you.

On June 29, 1972, the vote of one man in a U.S. Supreme Court decision implemented a procedure that dramatically altered American society. His vote overturned the death penalty. By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should be annulled as “unconstitutional.” Thirty-five states immediately commuted 600 death sentences.

As a result, murder today is no longer a crime to be avoided at all costs. Murderers are now rewarded with a lifestyle comparable to wealthy retirees. Consider the man who murdered 12 people and injured 70 more; he will be provided (at taxpayer expense) with clean clothes (not striped prison pajamas), prepared meals recommended by trained dietitians, access to movies, libraries, computers, first-class medical and dental care, education and money. “Hard labor” is prohibited, so he will not have to work another day in his life. Kind of makes you wonder about “punishment,” doesn’t it?

We don’t need stricter gun laws. I have a better plan. Let’s go back to the original idea articulated thusly: “Whoever sheds mans blood [unlawfully], by man [judicial government] shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6 AMP).

In other words, if you don’t want society to kill you, don’t kill anyone. Ensure this is abundantly clear and rigidly enforced: “You kill someone – we kill you, no ifs, no ands, no buts.”

Seems to me I read somewhere a very simple solution: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31 KJV).

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.


Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

America, the Camel is in the Tent!

There is a very interesting Middle Eastern proverb America would do well to observe. I learned it during four United States Air Force tours in the Middle East:

“Never let a camel get his nose in the tent, if he gets his nose in he will get his head in, if he gets his head in, he will get his hump in, and if he gets his hump in then he will get his rump in and you will have a camel in your tent.”

This is happening at the borders of many European countries and America’s border with Mexico. We must stop the camel at the tent entrance. The question is how?

First, we must understand the nature of our adversaries. Unlike us, they see compassion, understanding, forbearance and restraint not as humanitarian but as weakness. The ISIS terrorists and other jihadis have little regard for human life and Western culture. Women, children and even their own kind (Sunni versus Shiite) are targeted without hesitation by the radicals who launch cowardly attacks against unarmed citizens. They have a standard modus operandi: They negotiate ceasefires, armistices and treaties until they are prepared to launch their attacks. This cycle will continue until they achieve their oft-stated goal – the subjugation of all unbelievers.

America and European countries should beware that many even so-called “moderates” hate us. We must recognize that regardless of their present leadership (and the leftist media’s expressed desire for acceptance), most non-democratic forms of government and practically all Islamic dictatorships hate the U.S. and Western Europe precisely because of who and what we are. Our freedoms threaten their very existence.

Radio, television, cell phones, the Internet, students educated on our college campuses and “letters home” from people who have moved here generate strange ideas of freedom and liberty among “the man on the street” over there.

The billions of U.S. dollars spent on philanthropic endeavors such as feeding the starving, rebuilding infrastructures (including rebuilding mosques), propping up moderate friendly-to-the-West governments, various rescue operations and just plain out and out gifts have for the most part simply added insult to injury. Don’t believe that? Look at Iraq and now Iran.

This “freedom for all” business, in the minds of tyrants, whether a solitary dictator or a military junta, is a dangerous situation and since most of their media is controlled by the government, the West – and America in particular – is consistently portrayed as an enemy and a threat; consequently, we are hated and feared even by people who have a reason to love the freedoms we in the West enjoy.

Notice to Europe and America: The nose is in the tent. Now that we have potential terrorists living among us, what do we do? Various apologists will suggest we not do “anything that might make some of these people unhappy; let’s not generate a war that could last for decades.” Their position, roughly translated, is, America, Europe, once again, tuck your tail between your legs, lick your wounds, put another billion dollars into the pockets of their corrupt governments. But whatever you do, don’t make them unhappy!

The current Arab exodus has suddenly unveiled a frightening scenario. Imagine nuclear weapons falling into the hands of these so-called “freedom fighters” throughout the Middle East, while Iran (with billions of U.S. dollars) feverishly supports them and continues to develop its own nuclear capability.

Whether we like it or not, whether we sought it or not, and with all due respect to Europe, the simple fact is, the U.S. is, at this moment, the only remaining superpower in the world. We are the big dog on the block, and we had better start acting like it, or we’ll be inviting additional terror attacks like 9/11 – perhaps next time with a nuclear dirty bomb.

We must ask our leadership a sobering question: Do you really want to stop terrorism? To most governments, terror-inspired deaths are tragic statistics, but statistics nonetheless. Does anyone, except the families of the victims, really want to stop the terrorists? Can we really stop terrorists? The answer us a resounding yes!

If Congress will act intelligently, as a body of representatives of the people and not respective parties, we can stop terrorist activities and do it permanently, without the risk of any so-called “generational war” with 1.5 billion Muslims.

We could save hundreds of billions, even trillions, of U.S. tax dollars, thousands of American military lives, restore American prestige and establish America once again as the one country no terrorist would dare attack again – ever.

Would we be criticized for so doing? Yes. We would probably receive about as much criticism as we do today. Would we be attacked by hordes of Muslim warriors? No.

The attacks would come mostly in the form of harsh editorial criticism from the liberal American news media and tut-tuts from other countries dependent upon the U.S. for armed forces and dollars.

Additional attacks would also come in the form of “resolutions” passed in the United Nations, where we pay more than any other nation – 22 percent of the regular budget and 25 to 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. (The U.N. budget depends heavily upon the U.S. assessments to pay for a major portion of its ineffectual operations.) So, just how do we prevent future terrorist attacks and/or jihad on American citizens since Europe has its own modus operandi?

First, America should make this perfectly and definitively clear to all: We are not empire builders, and we have no desire to impose pax Americana on the world.

Second, we will continue to offer the outstretched hand of friendship to the world. In the words of President Lincoln, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive … to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Finally, and let this be especially clear and definitive: Any cowardly, murderous assault on American citizens by rogue individuals and/or nations will generate such an overwhelming response from the American people that there will never again be any question that any such action carries such a price that any group of individuals or nations can ill afford it. Will that really work? Remember Pearl Harbor? Ask Japan.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/america-the-camel-is-in-the-tent/#BCIzFgMM3H2VkkHg.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment


A significant percentage of the problems in America today exists primarily from the usurpation of power at the national level because of the abdication of personal responsibility at the local level.

We are experiencing – because we have allowed it – massive changes within our society and the societal mores on which the American republic rests. We must learn what this means for us and that traditional values should still be taught in an unfriendly and anti-morality society. A free society without moral underpinnings cannot continue to survive, but will, in fact, as with any structure that lacks foundational support, implode. Ask ancient Rome.

Something frightening is happening in America today. More and more of the traditional foundations are being destroyed. People without moorings (a stable traditional family, a sense of personal self-worth and concrete moral values) are being swept away by a “new wave.” A U.S. government report several years ago showed huge increases in the incidences of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault; at that time, up 42 percent and 25 percent respectively.According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a public advocacy group, on college campuses “Christian groups are considered religious, whereas Muslim or Hindu groups are considered cultural.” We see this regularly on high-school and college campuses, as well as in attacks on Christmas.

This new wave, based on “new age” values, seeks de-massification (the breaking into smaller groups) of the culture, its values and its Judeo-Christian morality. It seeks to substitute new belief systems and multi-ethnic/distinct national, linguistic, socio-cultural groups for the traditional “one nation, indivisible” concept.

Traditional concepts such as “male and female,” “married couples” (consisting of one man and one woman) and “father and mother” (consisting of a male and female) have come under constant attack and are now becoming the periphery.

“Gendercide” has become part of the modern-day lexicon. The book “Unnatural Selection” by Mara Hvistendahl contends that “parental preference” is the reason for the aborting of more than 200 million female fetuses worldwide since the late 1970s. According to some reports, gendercide is a leading cause of death of females.

“Gender liberation” has become the new fad in the educational system. Robert Tyler, in “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” explains, “Gender liberation means that male/female distinctions must be eliminated in order to ‘liberate’ children from unnecessary stereotypes.”This is not about equal rights but “eliminating the natural distinctions between male and female.” So now, in many schools, if a 16-year-old boy is transgender oriented and feels like a girl today, (s)he(?) is free to use the girls’ restroom, locker room or shower. The order of the day is “anything goes” and “diversity” – at all costs. Fading from view is the current concept of a morality of the majority; there must be equal minority groups and court-enforced diversity.

Left-leaning futurists, from their ivy-covered glass towers, wax eloquent about the need for direct democracy (which is, essentially, mob rule), more diversity and greater representation for all minority groups, including enforced sexual orientations. This is coming at the expense of national tranquility and is all based upon some hopeful, utopian, humanistic misconception, which relies on the innate goodness of mankind (albeit non-religious and “civilized”).

Decency was once a watchword, but “decency” does not communicate morality absent impartial standards.

This new wave seeks, and is resulting in, a giant, unresponsive, socialist-leaning bureaucracy that would replace individual responsibility with the state. The state would thus become the master and consequently assume the responsibility for implementing, directing and ultimately controlling collective behavior.

Restoring individual responsibility and requiring citizens to be involved in issues that affect them can offset the need for large bureaucracies. For example, laws that would affect long-standing public conduct (civic, social and moral standards) would require informed public participation – an expression of concern by individuals authentically caring about their fellow citizens, not merely by judicial decree or government mandate.

The founding documents of America presupposed such action. Individuals were created not by mindless evolution with little personal value but as living beings of worth, value and significance, in the image and likeness of a loving God. The Founders assumed and anticipated the citizens and their public servants (their governments) would treat one another accordingly.

On the other hand, if we are merely the products of a mindless evolution, then we indeed lack individual merit and worth, and deserve only those rights and privileges accorded us by our masters – and these right and privileges are?

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/something-frightening-happening-in-america/#ITLojzypiBrUzsS5.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

Are cop killings, abortion and rioting really wrong?

As I read, watch and listen to the news reports about tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of refugees fleeing their home countries, cop killings, “Black (not all) Lives Matter” marches, baby (read fetus) parts being sold, a county official being jailed for refusing to violate her religious beliefs, senior college male students having sex with young teenage girls, etc., etc., ad nauseum, these questions arise:

If we are going to make legal, moral, political, social and economic decisions without regard to biblical truth, what is the baseline for those decisions?

What is the rule book by which we all agree to play this thing called life?

From where do we draw the standards of right and wrong, good and bad, what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

What is the foundation for all the laws we agree to follow? What?

Morality implies “the quality of being in accord with standards of right and wrong.” Absent the Bible, what are the standards of right and wrong? This is the conundrum we are facing in our culture today.

Many insist that people can make moral choices in a vacuum. Their position is that ethical choices can be made without regard to an absolute standard of right and wrong; “It all depends on the situation.” These “situational ethics” are the shifting sands of our present system of values and the foundation for many of the unethical choices made by our leaders today.

Where do we draw the line? Who has the right to draw these lines? Are there even lines to be drawn? Words like moral, immoral, right, wrong, good, evil no longer have a bedrock that authenticates them, and now we are experiencing the chaos and loss that comes from rejection of the pillars of human decency.

Homosexuality, cop killings, rape, abortion, rioting, looting, slandering, lying, pornography, pedophilia, murder, political corruption, bribery, treason, child abuse – are these things wrong? Why?

If you do think these activities are wrong, what is the basis for your decision? You have to have a reason for your opinion. Just agreeing they are wrong, without a reason why, is illogical.

You say, “We just agree to disagree. Anyway, who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do? After all, isn’t the law just a matter of some judge or court’s opinion?”

What is the foundation of your reasoning?

Homosexuality used to be wrong – illegal, immoral – but now you can send someone to jail for refusing to violate their constitutionally protected right to practice their moral beliefs by not endorsing it! What happened to the reasoning that once made it wrong – and now right?

The question arises: Absent the Bible, what are the standards of right and wrong?

Let’s just say (like the progressives, nee liberals), for the sake of argument, that the Bible is no longer relevant, having no bearing on today’s societal standards. If that is so, then on what do we base our judicial system, our person-to-person behavior and our cultural concepts?

If you want to throw my Bible out, you are giving me permission to kill you for interfering with my “human right” to do whatever I want to do. Anyway, what is wrong? Killing somebody? Says who?

Is it all simply a matter of “every man doing that which is right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25 KJV)?

Imagine a society with no rules or regulations except those enforced by the guns controlled by a dictator. While that may seem beyond comprehension to those of us who live in America, that is the situation that presently exists in many countries operating outside the Judeo-Christian concepts of right and wrong. Many of the acts mentioned earlier are business as usual in much of the Middle East – excluding Israel.

The West (and Israel) all operate according to Western Civilization’s Judeo-Christian transcendent principles articulated in the Bible. Consequently, if you think any of the aforementioned acts of violence are uncivilized, inhumane and wrong, you are “guilty” of having a biblically oriented mindset.

You cannot support these positions without acknowledging that the word of God is the underpinning of everything that has made America a most blessed and fortunate nation – the foundation that has made us free to pursue our hopes and our dreams and to maximize His blessings in this life.

We are on the precipice of disaster unless we again agree together that the Bible is that bedrock, that reason and our only hope.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/are-cop-killings-abortion-and-rioting-really-wrong/#lkBJXSXcfx8PbFOR.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

Evolutionists: We’re Not a Law Unto Ourselves

Reading news headlines is very interesting: “Transgender porn growing in popularity,” “Entire culture war at stake,” “Gay rainbow flag found in killer’s apartment,” “There is no God but Allah,” “Teacher sends topless selfie to student,” “Atheist demands sheriff remove ‘In God We Trust’ from patrol cars,” “Planned Parenthood selling baby parts” … Need I go on?

The above cultural statements lend a measure of credence to the credo of the evolutionists that man is the product of evolution and only the weak-minded and superstitious believe in some supra-being somewhere who created us and holds us to some standard of behavior.

However, while intellectually this may make for stimulating cocktail or mind-numbing classroom discussions, few, if any, of its proponents truly desire the world to live by this rhetoric. Even a cursory examination of the natural selection process will prove this. As in the world of predators, imagine the strongest among us literally living off of the weakest. (Hmm, it seems like Planned Parenthood might already be doing that.)

Even while these pseudo-intellectuals revel in the titillation of godlessness, they are all the while relying on the belief in God held by the masses to hold said masses in check. Understand this: Absent an internal moral force, man is controlled only by external force; man is restrained either by the strong arm of morality or the strong arm of a stronger man. Ultimately, it could be said that Western civilization is based on the Bible, others on the bullet. Even the briefest glimpse into man’s history proves this.

Cultures that practice female genital mutilation, slavery, genocide and cannibalism highlight just a few of the “noble achievements” of man in his natural state. It is utter nonsense to propose that mankind, apart from God, will exist in a so-called “civilized state” solely under the auspices of Mother Nature. Man is impelled toward a condition or state based on the beliefs or culture that influence and/or govern his actions.

While the argument for evolution may generate passionate discourse among the intelligentsia, even its strongest adherents require, and anticipate, the civilizing influence of the “Christian God they so vehemently deny.

Let us look at just a few examples:

In the wild all-natural state of African lions, when the reigning king (read “Cecil”) is deposed, the new kings must kill the offspring of the deposed king to bring the lionesses into season. Now imagine in our civilized world of humans,rather than assume the burden of supporting the offspring of the deceased (or divorced) male, the new “king” simply kills off all the old offspring and starts afresh, and like the male “kids” in a lion pride, when his reach puberty, they are driven out.

On the western plains, a younger stronger stallion challenges, then drives out, the older weaker herd leader and takes over the females. How about in our natural law evolutionary society, a 6’7″ 275-pound, 25-year-old defensive tackle sees and desires the beautiful, shapely, younger wife of the skinny, flabby 5’5″ 150-pound college professor who taught him evolution. Solution? Beat him up (maybe bad enough that he goes away to die), move in, and take over his wife and house.

A seagull sees another gull fly by with a freshly caught fish, so he chases it down, makes it drop the fish, and takes it home to his family. How about this in today’s “no-God-allowed” society – an unemployed man trying unsuccessfully to get a loan in a bank watches a business executive walk out with $25,000, so he follows him, bashes in his head and takes the money to feed his own family.

A tribe of apes attacks and drives the hitherto dominant tribe out of their abundant feeding grounds and takes over. So why, in our “freedom-from-religion” society, shouldn’t gangs of blacks and Hispanics join forces and with guns drive the whites out of the nicer neighborhoods and take them over or vice versa?

Finally, a polar bear that hasn’t eaten lately kills and eats a baby polar bear, so – in New York City, a homeless guy who hasn’t eaten for weeks, snatches a baby out of a carriage while the mother isn’t looking, runs down an alley into an abandoned building, builds a fire, cooks and eats the kid. I can just hear the genteel folk in their security-guard-protected enclaves: “That is barbaric!”

The intellectuals who contend vociferously against God and His morality and passionately for evolution, wail, “Such behavior among humans is uncivilized … wrong … immoral!” They apparently have forgotten that according to them, a human is only a higher form of animal, so why should we expect different behavior from these particular animals?

Evolutionists would also claim that many of the acts of previous civilizations – like feeding babies to crocodiles, sacrificing virgins and throwing humans into volcanoes to appease the gods – were uncivilized. And by the way, I would give you odds they are using Western Judeo-Christian civilization as the standard.

If we truly are the product of evolution, then there are no moral absolutes, as there is no Author of moral absolutes.

If evolution is the truth, we should all act in a manner consistent with our own view of selfwhatever that may be. Doesn’t that line up with the position of the “enlightened”?

Do whatever you want, as long as you do it in a civilized fashion when interacting with us elite animals.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

Is the Bible the foundation of morality?

Here we go yet again. Another stellar example of a generation of lost youth as a result of our insistence that there are no absolute moral standards:

“Students call it an end-of-the-year tradition at the elite St. Paul’s School: Graduating seniors seek to hook up with younger classmates before departing the bucolic boarding school for college. But two days before this year’s graduation, authorities say, the spring dating rite known as the Senior Salute took a darker turn. An 18-year-old senior, Owen Labrie, allegedly led a 15-year-old freshman into a secluded area and sexually assaulted her as she pleaded ‘no.’ Investigators say Labrie may have been in a competition with friends to see how many conquests each could chalk up.”

Today, liberal educators and intellectuals insist that our children can make moral choices in a vacuum. Their position is that choices can be made without any absolute standards of right and wrong. The argument for situational ethics (any decision depends on the situation you are in) presents our youth with a shifting morality as the basis for making decisions. The fact of the matter is, however, the intelligentsia make these assertions without due consideration of the end results.

Abraham Lincoln said it this way: “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government of the next.”

And then there is this from Joseph Stalin: “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is 3-fold: its patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a hitherto illegal and immoral practice, homosexuality, has now become the law of the land in America. In the midst of heated debates today regarding abortion rights, transgenders, homosexual same-sex marriages, minor-attracted adults, and fetal tissue sales, arguments abound as to what should be considered the basis (if any) for making moral judgments.

Some time ago, an extremely well-educated, intelligent individual asserted in a discussion on morality and ethics that morality is completely separate from religious principle. I found this assertion interesting and even though I would substitute Bible for religious, I heartily disagree.

There are those who are adamant in their position that religion, based on biblical truths, has no place in the public square. They demand that all legal, social, political and economic decisions be made purely from the standpoint of reason, without regard to any standards of morality, which begs the question: Is there any standard for morality? The answer to that question depends on one’s definition of morality.

President George Washington, in his 1776 Farewell Speech, issued one of the gravest warnings in American history: “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”

He continued: “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Absent religious principles (which, in Western civilization, are taken from the Judeo-Christian Bible), what, if any, are the standards of right and wrong? Who sets them? Are they merely a matter of opinion? And if so, whose? What, one could reasonably ask, is the foundation upon which we base our actions and order our society?

If one group believes it is acceptable to kill the unborn, while another group believes it is acceptable to kill those who kill the unborn, which group is right? Says who? If one group believes you should practice homosexuality and pedophilia openly and another group believes they should kill homosexuals and pedophiles, which group is wrong? Says who? This is the conundrum forced upon us by this so-called intellectual liberty.

If there are absolutely no absolutes, then there is no basis for our criminal justice system, legal system, oaths, business agreements, or any other form of contractual intercourse. Our national security, the ability of police to protect us, the pursuit of criminals, the prosecution of lawbreakers, our prosperity, and our very existence as a nation all rest upon the twin pillars of ethics and morality. Remove them from Western civilization, and we find ourselves on the brink of the same destruction that befell another of the greatest empires ever to exist, the Roman Empire.

Rome fell not from hordes of barbarians at the gates, but from the abandonment of its standards of ethics and morality, creating rot at its core, among them a weakened moral fiber, discontented, disenfranchised masses (mobs), decline in the traditional citizenry (illegal aliens), literature, amusements, and lifestyles portraying gratuitous sex and violence, and the decline of patriotism.

What, may I ask, is the foundation of ethics and morality – if not the Bible?

Ultimately, standards of morality, and absolutes, are indispensable for the continuation of our individual liberties and the free republic we enjoy. Let us pray that historians will not someday look back and say of America, as of ancient Rome:

“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools … and … as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (a mind devoid of judgment) to do those things which were loathsome” (Romans 1:21-28).

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/is-the-bible-the-foundation-of-morality/#yvfg2A3QaMecPdqG.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

Iran and the Muslim doctrine of deception

President Obama made an interesting statement in his Aug. 5 speech. He compared the anti-American hardliners in Iran to those members of the U.S. Congress who oppose his agreement.

Remember, he said, “In fact, it’s those [Iranian] hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America!’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus” (emphasis added).

Those who oppose the agreement have “common cause” with terrorists?

I guess Obama would feel more at home and have “common cause” with those Iranian leaders who have publicly supported his deal with Iran. It does make you wonder, though, when you look into what some of the supporters of the deal had to say, people who apparently have “common cause” with this administration.

The following are some statements by several Iranian leaders who are “supporters” of the Obama deal:

  • “Saying ‘Death to America!‘ is easy. We need to express ‘Death to America!‘ with action” (“Moderate” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, May 2013).
  • “Of course, yes, death to America!” (Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, March 2015).
  • “Our policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all” (Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, July 2015 statement made after the deal was announced).
  • “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world” (“moderate” former Iranian President Rafsanjani, December 2001).

Now let me get this straight: If, as an American, you oppose the deal, you are in league with the “Iranian hardliners,” but if you support the deal, you are in agreement with those who wish to destroy America and Israel?

I thought we were looking for a means to stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. Apparently, in the Obama administration, there is an entirely different meaning to Iran’s attainment of nukes. Let me reiterate: Israel is well aware of Iranian President Rafsanjani’s (and much of the Muslim world’s) view of the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East – the total annihilation of Israel vs. “damages in the Muslim world.” Death suffered by the faithful in a war with “unbelievers” is a destiny to be sought. It means eternity in paradise, so the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions of “shahids” would only amount to “damages in the Muslim world.” It might be well to keep in mind that the Israelis also have a position worth remembering: “Never again!”

The mistake made by Westerners, in general, and Americans in particular, is in thinking devout Muslims have the same regard for human life as do those in the Judeo-Christian West. Additionally, the concept of “negotiation” by Muslims with non-Muslims differs radically from the accepted standards held by the West.

The West, generally speaking, is not, but must be made, aware of a Muslim doctrine called taqiyya, which permits them to deceive their enemies when doing so will be advantageous to Islams cause. Here are some quotes from the founder himself, the prophet Muhammad:

  • (Bukhari 3,49,857) Muhammad said, “A man who brings peace to the people by making up good words or by saying nice things, though untrue, does not lie.”
  • (Bukhari 4,52,267) Muhammad cried out,”Jihad is deceit.”
  • (Bukhari 5,59,369) Bin Maslama volunteered to kill an enemy for Muhammad, then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.” Muhammad replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”
  • (Bukhari 8,78,618) Abu Bakr, the prophet Muhammad’s closest friend and adviser and first convert to Islam, said, “If I make a pledge and later discover a more worthy pledge, then I will take the better action and make amends for my earlier promise.”

If deception of an enemy is advantageous to Islam, it is not a sin.

The reason there are translators at the United Nations is so all participants will be able to understand what is actually being said.

Could it be we need a translator of Islam in order to truly understand that they may not mean what we mean when we say what we mean?

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

Where’s outcry over rapes, murders of 19 girls?

I don’t agree with liberals and radical feminists on every issue, and the left and I often disagree in other areas. For example, though I don’t subscribe to the wanton killing of animals for sport, I was not able to join in the crusade against the dentist who killed Cecil the lion.

However, I am confident I will be able to join in the upcoming worldwide crusade of indignation against a recent occurrence in Mosul, Iraq.

Although the story has not yet made headlines and dominated the social media like Cecil-mania, I am sure it is only a matter of time. After all, it pertains to the ill treatment of women and we are all familiar with the almost universal demand by women for female and transsexual rights.

What am I talking about? The Mosul 19.

For the unenlightened, or those who may not have already guessed, this recent lead paragraph from the Clarion Project sums up the situation fairly simply: “The Islamic State (ISIS) executed 19 women in Mosul, Iraq for refusing to sexually submit to the terror organization’s jihad fighters, according to reports by the Kurdistan Democratic Party in the city.”

Now I know every women’s rights activist group is going to be up in the air about this, and there will no doubt be marches and calls for the elimination of ISIS worldwide, and especially here in America. Besides, religion is involved – and we know how anti-religious many of these groups are.

Here is a summary of the root cause of the situation:

“Jihad eh-nikah, or sexual jihad, is the term used to describe the practice of women volunteering themselves sexually to jihadi fighters to boost their morale and their desire to continue fighting to establish an Islamic state.” The news report continues: “One year ago, when the Islamic State (ISIS) swept through Mosul in a lightning takeover, posters appeared in the city stating, ‘We call upon the people of this county to bring their unmarried girls so they can fulfill their duty in sex jihad for their warrior brothers in the city and anyone who will not appear will feel the full force of the sharia [Islamic law] upon him.’”

Apparently, any evidence of not being “patriotic” was frowned upon by the “freedom fighters,” as the article concludes:

“Reports in the city at the time indicated Islamic State (ISIS) fighters went door-to-door, entering houses, killing the men and raping the women. It remains unclear in this case why the 19 girls were executed rather than simply taken and raped, as has been the case in every location the Islamic State has seized.”

After the outcry against the “brutal death” of Cecil, this more recent act of barbarism will surely generate outrage, demonstrations and social media outpourings across the world, demanding the U.N., and America in particular, take steps to prevent a recurrence of such a heinous act, just as they did with Cecil-mania.

Facebook, Twitter and all other social networks will be deluged by outraged feminists demanding justice for the Mosul 19. (I already have my computer ready to print out my “MOSUL 19″ banner.)

There can be no question that all leftists, feminists and activists who stand for sexual civil rights, liberties and transgenderism are outraged and will not stand idly by in view of this insensitive, brutal display of masculine aggression. I just need to know where the first demonstration or march is going to be held.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. After all, Cecil was an exquisite, rare, highly prized animal, a regal lion, king of the jungle – and these girls were only human beings.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/wheres-outcry-over-rapes-murders-of-19-girls/#C7ZutIEbTCgL6o3O.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

Only one Cecil, but 1.3 billion slaughtered babies

I sit sadly hearing about the tragic death of Cecil the African lion, quietly sipping tea, until I am interrupted by another news report about “babi …” (Oops, almost said “babies”) “fetus” parts being sold for cash, and medical research, by Planned Parenthood.

It brought to mind prior reports I’ve seen, such as:

“The remains of 17 babies in medical Ziploc bags – with their mothers’ names labeled on the outside – were found in a dumpster at a Woman’s Choice abortion clinic in Lansing, Michigan. (Under current Michigan law, these aborted babies and other biohazard waste can be placed in the trash as long as they are dipped in formaldehyde beforehand.)”


“In Lufkin, Texas, a 19-year-old man was convicted of murder after being found guilty of stomping on a mother’s stomach, at her request (she was carrying twins). Interestingly enough, though she had asked for his help, she was not prosecuted because ‘she could have had the same result by paying for an abortion.’”

Silly me! I was more outraged when I read the two above news stories than I was while being inundated with TV reports about Cecil the lion being killed by a dentist. Here was “poor Cecil” (himself a hunter who exercised his “right to choose” and killed other live animals for food) being killed by another hunter. Plus, the killer of Cecil used another dead animal to trick him into coming within range of his weapon. So, what about the animal that was killed to lure Cecil within range of the hunter? (Probably just some poor, unfortunate antelope.) Are we not upset about him, too?

Zimbabwe (along with some of our illustrious Hollywood celebrities) is now demanding that the “murderer of Cecil” be extradited and punished for his “crime.” I agree that Cecil was a magnificent creature. It is, indeed, a shame he was recklessly killed for no good reason. But really – we need to get some perspective here.

We now have a federally funded killing machine reaching unspeakable heights of depravity by not just killing babies at any and every stage of development, but selling their parts to the highest bidder. This is a mind bender.

We are having high-decibel national discourse about the fact that Planned Parenthood is selling baby body parts, yet we are unmoved that they are killing the “baby people” in the first place. And on top of that, everyone is enraged about a dead lion. A lion – not a human being! What is wrong with this picture?!

Babies are not some zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus thingee inside a pregnant woman. A “fetus” is conveniently not identified as “human” – which makes it easy to debate away the “right to live” argument for the woman’s “right to choose” option. However, a woman’s “right to choose” legally permits something even more horrendous than the killing of Cecil; it is called a “partial-birth abortion.”

For the unenlightened minority, a partial-birth abortion is a procedure in which the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound and removes the baby’s brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.”

Will someone please explain to me the difference between removing a baby via C-section, where they enable it to live, and a partial-birth abortion, where they terminate a fetus? In both cases, the “thing” is out of the womb, so please tell me, what is the difference?!

Scientifically proven techniques, developed in the mid-1990s dealing with DNA, “have proven that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization [conception]. A human being at an embryonic age and that [same] human being at an adult age are … the same; the biological differences are due only to … maturity. Science has further discovered that the human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the age of one cell.”

Hmmm, as I ponder the tragedy of Cecil, it almost makes me wonder: Should I be as upset about the 6,828,378 abortions by Planned Parenthood since 1970, or the 58,128,431 abortions in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade (thus far) as I am about Cecil?

Then, on the other hand, since Cecil is an international figure, should the worldwide figure of 1,343,355,594 (and counting) abortions since 1980 be of concern to me? And, since Cecil was from Africa, killed by an American, what about the almost 18 million African-American babies aborted since 1973?

Should I be upset? I guess not. After all, there was only one Cecil.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/only-one-cecil-but-1-3-billion-slaughtered-babies/#cKp8hOCQkv5fdzoO.99

Posted in Cultural | 1 Comment


What? More stories in the news about “police brutality”?

I, for one, am so tired of hearing how cops are out of control. Let me propose a simple solution that will simply and permanently eliminate “police brutality.” This proposal would apply equally to all local, state and federal law enforcement officials. It would immediately and permanently eliminate all traces of racism and allow for all crimes to be reported equally, regardless of perpetrator.

This solution would affect almost every American citizen regardless of age, race, creed, financial or religious status. In addition, it would literally save billions of dollars currently being spent on police forces, courts and prisons, and eliminate any hint of concern regarding capital punishment.

The solution? Abolish all laws, and eliminate the police departments.

Since there would be no laws to break, there would be no need for police enforcement. Additionally, courts would be abolished because there would be no laws to interpret. Without laws to be broken, there would be no need for prisons because there would be no criminals to incarcerate.

We could do away with all these stupid laws about how fast we can drive; hey, if my car will do 120 mph and I want to “put the pedal to the metal,” why not? Why can’t I park anywhere and everywhere I choose and take whatever I want whenever, from wherever and whomever I want? After all, why should my liberties be circumscribed just because you disagree with what I want to do?

I mean, whose idea was it to implement laws in the first place? (I know I didn’t have anything to do with most of the laws that govern my behavior.) Why should I be held in check, and kept from doing what I want to do, just because you disagree with it? Anyway, who says the guys who passed those laws to begin with were right? Since I may disagree with them, why should I be restrained by some people I never met or heard of?

You know, we have to keep in mind – not everybody wants to live like you think they should. They have their own ideas of how life ought to be lived. I mean, after all, you probably would not like to have some Middle East concept of “morality” about how to treat women forced on you by the “powers that be.” And, didn’t we just read about some guys in the Middle East and Africa raping a group of young girls? So, what’s wrong with grabbing some “hot babe” and dragging her into an alley and “taking care of business”? And why is everybody jumping on Bill Cosby just because he “worked out” with some babes? “So what? If you don’t agree with it, then just don’t do it, but why should you try to impose your opinion on somebody else just because you disagree?”

Since it is manifestly obvious that many disagree with certain laws, they would now be free to operate according to the dictates of “conscience.” Just imagine, everyone being able to do exactly what they want, the way they want. So what if what they want interferes with your right to live life the way you want? I mean, after all, isn’t freedom all about everybody being able to do whatever they want, any way they want?

We could implement the concept articulated in the book of Judges contained in the Bible. At one stage in the development of the nation of Israel, such a concept was in force. It was stated thusly; “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Can’t you just visualize the liberty and freedoms available to every person under that concept? Of course, it led to some serious interpersonal problems, but what the heck, “If it feels good do it,” right?

Or have we missed something here?

You recognize, of course, the tongue-in-cheek aspect of the preceding. We are, and should be, held responsible for our actions. Absent such accountability, We the People would be lost to our own self-ascribed concepts of “freedom,” as others who have gone before.

Could it be that “law enforcement” was/is designed to provide the maximum amount of protection to the greatest number of people? What is the definition of “law enforcement”? Why do we have emergency 9-1-1? How do we define “illegal”? Based on what? Shouldn’t citizens be required to obey the laws of the land?

The laws of the land governing most of Western civilization, and America in particular, are based on the Judeo-Christian precepts articulated in the Bible. These laws are designed to provide maximum liberty and protection to the greatest number of people.

Could it be that the amazing world-renowned institution known as the “United States of America” owes its world leadership and world-emulated individual freedoms to such founding concepts as: “What is liberty without virtue? It is madness, without restraint” (Edmund Burke, Founding Father).

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/who-needs-laws-eliminate-police-departments/#QlyFjDZhlkVrPCdX.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment