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.)”

Another:

“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

WHO NEEDS LAWS? ELIMINATE POLICE DEPARTMENT

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

ISRAEL: AMERICA’S LAST STAND

I think the P5+1 diplomats who “negotiated” the treaty with Iran may have set the world on a path that will almost certainly lead to one or more fierce battles in the Middle East and possibly set the stage for World War III. Lest some think I am overstating the case, allow me inform some and remind others of an event that occurs annually in Israel.

Every year on a particular day in April, across the nation of Israel, sirens sound for two minutes and everything comes to a halt. Vehicles in cities and small towns, on streets and highways, pull over and stop. Drivers and passengers get out and stand by their vehicles with heads bowed. Six million Jews – children in school, workers, farmers, homemakers – all pause to solemnly observe Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day.

One of the main lessons learned by the Jewish nation from the Holocaust is that … it must defend itself. This concept is one of the fundamental ethos of Israel’s Defense Forces. IDF (Israeli Defense Force) soldiers gather and stand at a ceremony held at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum, located in Jerusalem. Standing … with their heads bowed, IDF soldiers bear the memory of the Holocaust and vow: “Never Again!” It is an interesting parallel that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and the present population of Israel is roughly six million.

Why would anyone think the Israelis will sit quietly by while Iran – which regularly hosts anti-Israel demonstrations and whose “spiritual leader” has denied Israel’s right to exist – attains nuclear weapons? This is especially true in light of the fact that sanctions and other elements had almost brought Iran to its knees. Iran was/is on the verge of collapse, but now, thanks to this agreement (not treaty), billions of dollars are going to suddenly flow into its coffers in exchange for it doing nothing.

A major problem today is that people simply cannot conceive of living side by side every day with someone who has sworn to kill them. Try to imagine living beside people who almost daily launch rockets into your cities, forcing you to run for your life. It is even more difficult for Americans, who have no concept of war on our shores – since the last war fought on American soil was 154 years ago. (While Sept. 11 was shocking and put some of us on guard for a while, it is now “history” and many millennials have little, if any, concern about it.)

Try and imagine what it would be like if several times a month, or worse yet, daily, someone who had sworn to kill you launched an attack against your neighborhood or home. What would your reaction be? What would your opinion be of a police department who only asked questions when you dialed 9-1-1? Or so-called “friends” who consistently stood against your right to purchase a gun to defend your family? How many of you would simply bow your head and wait patiently for a person who had sworn to kill you and your family to attain arms and arrive, ready to shoot?

Not to overstate the issue, but I think it is a grave mistake of the most serious order to think Israel is going to sit idly by while Iran develops a nuclear weapon. In support of those statements, remember, Israel has already attacked and destroyed two nuclear reactor sites, Iraq’s and Syria’s. Most realize, as does Israel, the potential for a massive response, but even Saudi Arabia is among those Muslim nations quietly supporting Israel. They are fully aware that a nuclear-armed Iran would present an immediate and ongoing danger to the entire Middle East. Israel is not going to hesitate in taking out Iran’s nuclear capability, regardless of the consequences.

Life does not have the same measure of value to certain groups: Sunnis and Shias are both Muslim groups, but they do not hesitate to kill one another. If they would not refrain from killing fellow Muslims, does anyone think for a moment they would hesitate killing “infidels”?

Col. Oliver North, who recently returned from Israel, said this regarding the Israelis and the West’s recent agreement with Iran: “Here’s the bottom line: In Israel, the words ‘never again’ and ‘never forget’ are not political slogans. They mean it.”

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/israel-americas-last-stand/#W320QuBs3k0xDqTK.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

WHAT HAPPENED TO RIGHT AND WRONG?

According to the recent Supreme Court decision, “We the People” are now being forced to accept a particular type of sexual behavior, as it is now the “law of the land.” And all this time I thought the Constitution said, Congress (not the Court) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.Aren’t the courts supposed to interpret (not write) laws?

Can someone please do a favor for me and define “right” and wrong?

Do we even have universal standards for right and wrong today? If so, what are they based on? Who and what determines whether or not something violates those concepts? Is it wrong to murder someone? Steal from people? Lie about people? Is it all simply a matter of public opinion?

For the most part, a majority of people reading this would agree that certain things like disrespecting your parents, murder, stealing, adultery or lying is wrong. We have laws against most of these and court cases, lawyers, judges, etc., to ensure we do not get away with same. Why?

One of the first things I learned as a child was the difference between right and wrong. “Ben, don’t lie, steal or cheat; that’s wrong.” I also learned there were consequences for violating the rules or standards established by parents and other authority figures. It was called “punishment,” and it ranged from mild, (privileges restricted, sitting or standing in the corner) to “severe” (a spanking).

It used to be that violations of the aforementioned standards were enforced in the family and across the entire African-American community. “R-e-s-p-e-c-t” was not just a song sung by an R&B artist, but a concept implemented by all, and especially children toward adults. For violating any of these community standards, a child could be spanked by a responsible adult and sent home with a note of explanation. Depending on the severity of the “crime,” many children could receive additional disciplining. (As a point of information, the party administering the initial punishment would, in church Sunday, if not sooner, advise the parent of the actions taken against the “perpetrator.” And woe unto the child who had not delivered the note reporting the incident.)

However, apparently the times, they are a-changin’. Today, there seem to be no community standards of morality that are applicable to all. The present modus operandi is “every man for himself” or the old familiar phrase, “If it feels good, do it.”

Here is a question for you. Which person is the least dead: one killed by first, second or third-degree murder or manslaughter? Killing a person today is not simply murder; apparently it depends on the circumstances.

Perhaps a relatively new word in some modern vocabularies –”morality” – is the stumbling block. Morality is defined as “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior; ethics, mores, standards/principles of behavior.”

Certain time periods and cultures apply entirely different meanings to this standard. As I was raised during the publicly active days of the KKK and White Citizen’s Council, etc., violations of the accepted behavioral standards by a black against a white could, and sometimes did, result in the death of the violator. Is the way women are still treated in many parts of the world today right or wrong? The responses given to that question would depend heavily on the morality of the responders.

I guess the answer to all our questions rests on the application of that word, “morality” –”principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” This then begs the question: What is the basis for our American principles, ethics and mores? Could it perhaps be the same Book the justices swear on when they take the oath of office?

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/what-happened-to-right-and-wrong/#ZGZdFWu5UsyiHtR3.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

1 FOR CONFUCIUS, 1 FOR CICERO, NONE FOR JESUS

I have heard many commentators and read numerous articles on the recent Supreme Court decision on homosexual marriage, but one thing in particular caught my attention – a reference by Justice Kennedy to two historical figures. Having some familiarity with certain historical references regarding the concept of marriage, I was interested in knowing who Kennedy had acknowledged. A bit of research turned up an interesting article.

Quoting Justice Kennedy:

“Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations. The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius [551-479 BC] taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. 2 Li Chi: Book of Rites 266 (C. Chai & W. Chai eds., J. Legge transl. 1967). This wisdom was echoed centuries later and half a world away by Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) who wrote, ‘The first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then the family.’ See De Officiis 57 (W. Miller transl. 1913).”

I thought it extremely interesting that Justice Kennedy would refer to history to support a particular position, since Western civilization in general, and America in particular, is based on certain historical positions. It is also an unacknowledged point of fact that the civilizations represented by the individuals quoted leave much to be desired in direct comparison with the nation presently implementing the decision.

A major part of the problem we face is a failure by a growing majority of Americans to recognize the unique value and God-given freedoms we enjoy in this country. We seem to be struggling mightily to discard, or allow to be discarded, the principles that have made this country unlike any other on the face of the earth today. Winston Churchill, quoting George Santayana, said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”; or as a quote I learned as a child, which will be familiar to many, says, “You don’t miss the water ’til the well runs dry.”

The Supreme Court majority opinion referenced the aforementioned philosophical position of Confucius, a key figure in the development of Far Eastern philosophies. Which, of all the listed countries that are offshoots of that philosophy, would you choose to live in, as opposed to America? China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam? Various territories including Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, Singapore? These cultures are apparently those most strongly influenced by Confucianism philosophy.

Perhaps you would prefer the time of Cicero (107 BC-44 BC) whose life coincided with the fall of the Roman Empire? Some may find this surprising, but homosexuality, including homosexual marriage, was alive and well in Rome. It was even celebrated by “select emperors … a spin-off of the general cultural affirmation of Roman homosexuality.” This is nothing new, as the early Christians in Rome learned; it was merely another “part of the pagan moral darkness of their time.”

What Christians are fighting against today, then, is not yet another sexual innovation peculiar to our enlightened age, but the return to pre-Christian, pagan sexual morality. Most of us are familiar with the moral decline which led to the ultimate demise of Rome, once considered “the most powerful nation on earth.”(Hmmm, does that phrase sound somewhat familiar?)

Personally, I found it extremely interesting and enlightening (as to the positions of the majority vote on the court) that while Justice Kennedy could quote historical figures, he totally neglected another historical concept, the transcendent principles upon which America is founded.

These Judeo-Christian principles are found in another historical document, the Bible, which specifically addresses the concept of marriage. The court acknowledges, as Justice Kennedy pointed out:

“There are untold references to the beauty of marriage in religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures, and faiths, as well as in art and literature in all their forms. It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.”

Interestingly, while the positions of the historical figures Confucius and Cicero were mentioned, I find a peculiar dichotomy in the Supreme Court’s action in this particular ruling between, as they say “on de block,” “What is said and what is did.” Aren’t judges supposed to examine all the evidence, pro and con, regarding a case or issue, prior to rendering a decision?

Every Supreme Court Justice, who is appointed for life, takes this oath and is sworn into office with:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

They swear this oath with their hand on the Bible. Guess what evidence they would have found regarding this case had they looked into the book under their hand:

“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Mark 10:6-8 ESV).

I guess it’s OK to quote Cicero and Confucius, but not Jesus.

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/2015/07/1-for-confucius-1-for-cicero-none-for-jesus/#q1lzHDOBAM7JIm8V.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

LOVE CONQUERS ALL IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Unquestionably, one of, if not the, most influential institutions in the African-American community is still the church. Bishops, who have been elected to head their denominations, and pastors, who, by popular acclaim through congregational support of their message, oversee mega-churches, wield an enormous amount of influence among blacks, especially the pre-’60s generation.

Since Reconstruction, the black church has served as a source of strength, comfort and leadership. Ministers in the black community are, for the most part, accorded respect, and thus far the majority of black community leaders also bear the title “reverend” before their names, a condition not existing in the white community to such a degree.

A prime example of the way the church should react is demonstrated by the members of the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, the scene of one of the most horrific crimes of the decade. Nine members of the congregation were murdered by a gunman during a gathering for prayer. While the president and the media immediately leapt, yet again, upon the racial aspect and fostered “hate-crime” headlines, the members, survivors and family members have demonstrated the essence of what real Christians are called upon to be like.

There have been public declarations of forgiveness for the murderer, and, at the same time, there has been no racial animus displayed by any of the members. A community march is being scheduled that includes blacks and whites and survivors and members of the family. This is a pre-eminent example of what the church in the black community exemplified from the 1800s to the 1960s.

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!

In the decades since Reconstruction (media hype to the contrary), despite specifically targeted barriers and intense local, state and even some national hostility, African-Americans have made almost unimaginable strides. Few reasonable people would attempt to argue, objectively, that America has not progressed, literally by leaps and bounds, both socially and economically.

In their book, “America in Black and White; One Nation, Indivisible,” co-authors Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom pointed out: “No group in American history has ever improved its position so dramatically in so short a time.” One can only begin to imagine the impact on the overall political, cultural and economic life of the United States had a Democrat president (Andrew Johnson) not ordered the removal of 40,000 freed slaves from 400,000 acres of prime land that was promised to them by Republicans. Can you visualize what America would be like today had not a Democrat-controlled Congress reversed the anti-segregation provisions of the civil rights legislations passed by Republicans in 1866, 1870, 1871 and 1875?

The impact on the world, not just America, of millions of free blacks having lived and worked for 200 years in a colorblind society, while attending churches like the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Charleston, South Carolina, would be incalculable. Literally trillions more dollars would have been generated by the American economy, making the most robust economic engine ever to exist even more powerful.

Let us carefully observe the responses of the media, both political parties and the president to the total lack of racist hyperbole and the failure to claim or blame racism – and all whites in general – by the membership for what one individual did in their church.

Could this be a lesson from which most of America could profit today? Yes, there was injustice, and we grieve, but we forgive and we bear no hate. Love never fails.

That should be the prayer uttered by all of us – for all of us.

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/love-conquers-all-in-south-carolina/#747xTWjpMs8cmdEB.99

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment