In the eyes of some people, Harry Hopkins was and is a hero.
Unfortunately, those who see him that way are either Russian or want a Marxist America.
Harry Hopkins was a traitor to America, & his treachery single-handedly caused the Cold War:
From the “Did You Know?” section at FrederickDouglassRepublicans.com:
African Americans originally came to America unwillingly, having been stolen and sold by Muslim slave-catchers in Africa to Dutch traders journeying to America in 1619.
The Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of any individual.
In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.
The 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the Republicans in congress and by 23% of the Democrats in congress.
Not one Democrat either in the House or the Senate voted for the 14th amendment declaring that former slaves were full citizens of the state in which they lived and were therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen in that state.
Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.
In 1866 Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.
George Wallace was a Democrat.
Bull Connor was a Democrat.
In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going to public school.
In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black Americans trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.
Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Literacy tests, white only primaries, and physical violence all came from the Democratic Party.
Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched. 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and Democrats successfully blocked those bills.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. His father, Daddy King was a Republican.
Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases – not to overlook the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In the 108th Congress, when Republicans proposed a permanent extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (composed only of Democrats).
Following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass received Presidential appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Democratic President Grover Cleveland removed Frederick Douglas from office but Republican President Benjamin Harrison reappointed him.
Very few today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. Although slavery still had not been abolished in all the states, things definitely were moving in the right direction.
By 1820, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson’ party (the Democratic Party) had become the majority party in Congress.
In 1789, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory. In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in almost half of the federal territories.
In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed the “Fugitive Slave Law”. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines.
Because the “Fugitive Slave Law” allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery, this law was disastrous for blacks in the North; and as a consequence of the atrocious provisions of this Democratic law, some 20,000 blacks in the North left the United States and fled to Canada.
The “Underground Railroad” reached the height of its activity during this period, helping thousands of slaves escape from slavery in the South all the way out of the United States and into Canada – simply to escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave Law.
In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery: the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Even though Democrats in Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which slavery was permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise, they had retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier restrictions, thus allowing slavery to be introduced into parts of the new territory where it previously had been forbidden.
Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, in May of 1854, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress – along with some anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Emancipationists, formed a new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans. The name of that party? They called it the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.
One of the founders of the Republican was U.S. Senator Charles Sumner. In 1856, Sumner gave a two day long speech in the U.S. Senate against slavery. Following that speech, Democratic Representative Preston Brooks from South Carolina came from the House, across the Rotunda of the Capitol, and over to the Senate where he literally clubbed down Sumner on the floor of the Senate, knocked him unconscious, and beat him almost to death. According to the sources of that day, many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and it even amused them. What happened to Democrat Preston Brooks following his vicious attack on Sumner? He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily re-elected to Congress.
In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first Presidential election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat James Buchanan. In that election, the Republican Party issued its first-ever Party platform. It was a short document with only nine planks in the platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks set forth bold declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
In 1856, the Democratic platform took a position strongly defending slavery and warned: “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people”.
It is worth noting that for over a century and a half, Democrats often have taken a position that some human life is disposable – as they did in the Dred Scott decision. In that instance, a black individual was not a life, it was property; and an individual could do with his property as he wished. Today, Democrats have largely taken that same position on unborn human life – that an unborn human is disposable property to do with as one wishes.
African Americans were the victims of this disposable property ideology a century and a half ago, and still are today. Consider: although 12 percent of the current population is African American, almost 35 percent of all abortions are performed on African Americans. In fact, over the last decade, for every 100 African American live births, there were 53 abortions of African American babies. Democrats have encouraged this; and although black Americans are solidly pro-life with almost two-thirds opposing abortion on demand, a number of recent votes in Congress reveals that Democrats hold exactly the opposite view, with some 80 percent of congressional Democrats being almost rabidly pro-abortion and consistently voting against protections for innocent unborn human life.
Moses wrote, “honor your father and mother.”
Bertrand Russell wrote, “the influence of the home (i.e. mom & dad) is obstructive.”
One of these men has had a tremendous impact on American public schools, while the other is banned.
Moms & dads out there, do you wonder why there’s so much separation & distance between you & your kids?
It’s because here in America we base our public education on the writings of Bertrand Russell. From 8am through 3pm, 5 days a week, & 9 months a year your kids were or are manipulated by Russell’s herd psychology by leaders who defend teaching kids about “anal fisting” because we tolerate a diversity of ideas but they ban the Bible.
Dear Public School Parents,
You may have been discouraged by some of my recent comments on public education, so I would like to offer you some encouragement.
First, I think it is awesome and necessary for Christian teachers, parents, & students to be in public schools and display the hope that is in us because of the blood and righteousness of Jesus.
Second, the same quotes that are extremely discouraging about public education also give us the playbook to defeat their manipulative agenda.
3 of Bertrand Russell’s 4 primary principles of psychological manipulation in public education were to establish that 1) the influence of the home is obstructive, 2) reach the “patient” before age 10, and 3) that “the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity” (i.e. that those who believe truths that are unhelpful to the state agenda have a sick, unnatural insanity).
Parents, if you don’t want your children manipulated & controlled by this agenda, 1) be involved in your child’s/children’s education, realize & prepare for & overcome the state’s goal to separate you from the education of your child(ren); 2) protect your children from deception & corruption, especially before age 10; and 3) teach your child(ren) the truth, and that the truth is worth defending even if teachers and other students mock it.
On this last point, people- especially within the realm of science- make a commitment to “follow the truth wherever it leads.” If your child pursues consistency with this commitment, where teachers depart from said commitment, he or she will be treated like an outcast- because public education does not follow the truth when it leads to God.
Also, in a letter to a co-conspirator, Bertrand Russell named the biggest obstacle to their plan of using psychology to control, distract, & pacify the children who become the adults: the Bible!
Don’t want your kids to be controlled by psychological manipulation? Read them the Bible & teach them the Bible, and lead your family’s involvement in a church that reads & teaches the Bible!
Obviously, this is easier said than done; but it is worth it! Your children are valuable enough to those with an agenda of fundamentally transforming America as we know it that they spend a lot of time, effort & money on manipulating them.
Surely your children are valuable enough to you to put in the time, effort & money to protect them.
The “emperor of evolution” has been exposed by a dead man: Richard Dawkins has no clothes!
If we wish to understand Dawkins, we must first understand Lord Bertrand Russell, the aforementioned dead man who passed away in 1970. Russell’s thoughts on education have had a major influence on American public education, and they apparently have had the same influence on Richard Dawkins.
Russell believed that there should be two different educations for two different types of people. For common people like you and me, there should be a common education. For people like Richard Dawkins who are chosen to be part of the scientific ruling class, there should be a different education.
Russell also believed that the scientific rulers should manipulate the commoners in order to control them:
“The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black.”
In order to produce said conviction, Russell wrote that four factors must be established:
1) the influence of the home is obstructive
2) you must reach the “patient” before age 10
3) words set to music & repeated frequently are extremely useful
4) “The opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity.”
“When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
Look with me at Russell’s fourth principle, and then we will inspect an example of Dawkins clearly trying to employ it.
“The opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity.”
Two words in that sentence did not make sense as I understood them, so I had to look them up. I think it helps to paraphrase it based on the definitions I found:
“The opinion that snow is white must be held to show an [unnatural/unhealthy] taste for [that which is unacceptably weird].”
Someone seeking to do this might argue that, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims to believe that snow is white, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
This statement is trying to show that the *opinion* that snow is white shows “a morbid taste for eccentricity.”
In light of what we now know of Lord Bertrand Russell, let’s examine Richard Dawkins’ evolutionary wardrobe, shall we?
Dawkins refuses to debate anyone who believes in intelligent design. His stated reason is that ID is not worthy of his time and has been factually eliminated by scientific evidence.
His real reason is that he knows that debating & discussing the facts gives credibility to intelligent design, and undermines his efforts to persuade us common folk that “snow is black.”
Here is Dawkins trying to show that those who oppose evolution have a “morbid taste for eccentricity.”
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Again, the “emperor of evolution” has been exposed by Bertrand Russell: Richard Dawkins has no clothes!
Liberals oppose agism, sexism, & racism… Unless it helps them win a Presidential election!
In ’08, the media had a 2 for 1 special, packaging agism & sexism together. John McCain was too old to be President & electing him would have put America a heartbeat away from the only thing worse than Old Man McCain in the Oval Office- President Palin!
Rather than celebrate the first woman since 1984* to be on the Presidential ticket of a major political party, the media assaulted Palin for, well, being a woman. Their biggest criticisms of Palin were that she was a mom & that the RNC spent a bunch of money on her campaign wardrobe.
Rather than do their job and fairly present both sides for America to make an informed decision, the media made ’08 out to be Messiah Obama vs the old man and the woman.
And, disagreeing with or opposing Obama was portrayed as racist, which is ironic, since in 2012…
The media torched Herman Cain.
Somehow, even bringing up the skeletons in Obama’s closet- like his known connections with America-haters Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis, & Bill Ayers- meant that you were a racist who only opposed Obama because he is half-black.
Yet going on a witch hunt to find skeletons in Herman Cain’s closet wasn’t racism, the liberal media was just doing their job!
If you look at what our liberal media does rather than what they say, they are champions of age, gender, & racial equality- unless you’re a conservative!
*an earlier version of this post wrongly said Palin was the first woman in history on the Presidential ticket of a major political party. Geraldine Ferraro was actually the first, as the VP on the Democrat ticket in 1984
Many in this country want to see our founding principles replaced with Marxism. They think they are clever, and they say they’re “progressives” instead of Marxists, Socialists, and Communists. But if you know anything about Marxism, you quickly see that they are really just Marxists in “progressive” clothing. Limited Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and a free market economy have produced lasting and boundless prosperity in America.
The Marxists would like to replace those principles with unlimited, unruly government, extravagant spending by those in power while the people suffer extreme poverty, and total government regulation over the economy.
In Texas, we tend to think these are only problems in California, Chicago, and Detroit. But these problems are a lot closer to home than we realize.
Right here in Texas, many public school students are being taught that Capitalism is the worst economic system because it is selfish, we need to climb the stairs to Socialism because there is some sharing of wealth between all people, and Communism is the best form of government because it is the least selfish.
Right here in Texas. Children in a public school near you. Perhaps even your children.
There was a bishop in present-day Turkey many centuries ago named Polycarp. When he was an old man, the Roman authorities took him to the coliseum and encouraged him to “repent” of his “unbelief.” By this they meant that he should believe in the deity of Caesar, rather than in the deity of Jesus. If he would not “repent,” they promised to throw him to the wild beasts. Old, brave Polycarp told them to call their beasts, for “repentance from better to worse is a change we cannot make.”
Likewise, it is time for us to boldly face the “progressives,” and tell them that “progress” from the American Dream to the Marxist Nightmare is a change we cannot make!
Radical liberals are all about distraction and destruction.
Taking their cues from their heroes Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, & Saul Alinsky, they know that the only way to achieve their fantasy of a Marxist utopia in America is by destroying America as we know it.
But they also have to distract us from the destruction in order to be successful.
Hitler & co. understood that they could not conquer a unified Germany from within. So they divided Germany into smaller, beatable groups. Hitler took power amidst economic despair, & systematically exchanged economic benefits for liberties. He put bread on the tables of starving families, while taking away more and more of their freedoms. That is how a nation of relatively good people, not entirely unlike our own people, stood by silently & watched the genocide of millions of people.
Don’t think that could happen here? It has already begun.
Before the nation fully caught Trayvon-Zimmerman fever, the Obama administration was swamped in scandal after scandal after scandal.
The administration used the IRS to target political opponents, illegally spied on the press & civilians without warrant, Americans died as a result of State Department failures, & the State Department & White House covered up those failures leading up to the 2012 presidential election.
Let me ask you this:
Do you think most black Americans care right now about government abuses & overreach, the Obama scandals, etc?
Germans didn’t care about the rights Hitler took from them, as long as he kept putting food on their tables.
I bet most black Americans right now would say that our government can take many of our rights away, as long as the government promises and/or actually provides racial & social justice.
Add to that the fact that America is deeply divided along racial lines following the Zimmerman verdict, and radical liberals are on the verge of having their fantasy fulfilled.
They have successfully distracted & divided us, so that they may destroy us.
Human stem cells are miraculous.
The obvious ethical problem with embryonic stem cells is that the only way we get them is by killing embryos. There are now alternatives to embryonic stem cells, which remove the ethical problem by removing the necessity of killing embryos to get them.
Pro-lifers often argue against embryonic stem cell research, obviously, because we are opposed to killing embryos.
I agree with that argument, and I’d like to turn it around to argue something I haven’t seen, heard or thought of before: that the miraculous power of embryonic stem cells should cause us to oppose abortion in all cases except for saving the life of the mother.
Some abortion advocates semantically scuffle over whether we say that an embryo is a life or merely has “potential for life.”
Semantics aside, embryonic stem cells have amazing, wonder-working power!
Abort73.com quotes the National Institutes of Health (NIH):
“Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.”
Again, stem cells are truly miraculous!
But that miracle doesn’t belong to you, it doesn’t belong to me, it doesn’t belong to whomever it may help, and it doesn’t even belong to the mother or father. That miracle doesn’t belong to the scientific community or to society.
That miracle of life belongs to the embryo; to that child, that person.
The miraculous power in embryonic stem cells should cause us to defend the human rights of that human embryo.
- "The Dawkins Letters"
- "The God Delusion"
- 2 Samuel 20
- 2008 Presidential election
- Acts 17:24-31
- Anglican Church
- Anthony Flew
- Australian Christian music
- Ayn Rand
- Charles Darwin
- child of God
- Christ crucified
- Chuck Norris
- Church History
- David Robertson
- Desiring God
- Doers of the Word
- Dr. Jim Hamilton
- expository preaching
- Gene Robinson
- glory of God
- I Was There
- Intelligent Design
- James Hamilton
- Jesus Christ
- Joel Osteen
- John Piper
- justification by faith
- King David
- Lee Strobel
- Mark Driscoll
- Mars Hill Church
- Mike Huckabee
- Nathan Tasker
- preach the Word
- Psalm 1
- Richard Dawkins
- roe v. wade
- seminary professor
- Sermon on Mars Hill
- Sex and the Supremacy of Christ
- the apostle Paul
- the Bible
- The Case for Faith
- The Law of the Lord
- the rebellion of Sheba
- The Resurrection
- the Word of God
- William Tyndale