The Integrity of The Constitution Is Non-Negotiable [Video]

18408992_3f55c5f556_o

Last year following the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida I wrote an article about the Consitution being non-negotiable for America. The reactions from the Left to the recent shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio have prompted a more complete analysis of that subject.

The last article in this journal focused more on the President’s words in the wake of those horrible events. The focus shifts here to a larger part of the picture, the integrity of the Constitution itself.

The Integrity of the Constitution Is at Stake

U.S. ConstitutionThe English word “integrity,” has a commonly understood meaning similar to “honorable,” or of good moral character. However, there is a lesser-known meaning of the word which is,

the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished:

It is this particular kind of integrity of the United States Constitution that is threatened today. I refer, of course, to the renewed attacks on the 2nd Amendment because of the recent mass shootings.

There is little doubt that the goal of the Left is to banish the 2nd Amendment with its troubling [to the Left] individual citizen’s “right to bear arms.” The newest ‘limits’ they wish to place upon this right are simply tracking points toward that goal.

What is not understood by many is the full consequence of tossing the 2nd, should the Left be allowed to continue this narrative. Whether the Left realizes this or not is irrelevant because the result is inevitable.

The fact is that any repeal of the 2nd would result in shattering the integrity of the Constitution itself. Moreover, this is uniquely true of any one of the first ten Constitutional Amendments, better known as the “Bill of Rights.”

Repealing Any Part of the Bill of Rights Would Destroy the Constitution

To gain some further insight into this, examine the reason the first ten Amendments were proposed. It is found in the preamble prior to listing the Amendments themselves.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

U.S. Constitution

From top left clockwise: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson

The framers came to the realization that without some declaration of American’s individual and unbreakable basic rights, the powers granted to the government could be used by future leaders to usurp such rights. The phrase ‘restrictive clauses’ was intended to mean restricting the power of the state, not the power of the individual.

That is evident in the wording of each one of the Bill of Rights, for they speak of what the government can’t do while asserting the rights of the individual citizen. Should any of them be removed the cascade of consequences would inevitably devastate the other parts and do what the founders most feared, increase the power of the state over the citizen.

It is important to examine the rights in the Bill of Rights and understand the inter-connectedness of each and that should one be swept away by the winds of the Left, the rest will fall sooner or later. The only course is to insist upon the integrity of the Constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

The Rights in the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights is a profound and wise document, and it deserves being read in the original wording. If any reader wishes to do so, it can be accessed online here: https://constitution.com/bill-rights/.

In this meager attempt to make the essence of the document a bit clearer, these are my plain-spoken “Bill of Rights.”

The First Amendment mentions five distinct rights: 1. Congress can’t restrict freedom of religious belief or practice., 2. Congress can’t halt freedom of speech. 3. Congress can’t restrict freedom of the press 4. Congress can’t stop the citizens from peacefully assembling, and 5. Congress must allow people to petition the government for a “redress of grievances.” That is, the government must listen to the complaints of the citizens.

The Second Amendment: The government can’t infringe upon a citizen’s right to private ownership of firearms.

The Third Amendment: The government can’t force anyone to house military forces on their own property.

The Fourth Amendment: The government can’t search a citizen and take their property/or arrest them without probable cause.

The Fifth Amendment also delineates five specific rights: 1. The government can’t hold or imprison someone for a serious crime without an indictment from a Grand Jury unless it happens during military service in wartime. 2. The government can’t put anyone on trial for the same crime more than once. 3. The government can’t make anyone testify against themselves 4. An individual accused of a crime has the right of the “due process” procedures of the law. 5. The government can’t take private property for public use without paying a fair price for it.

The Sixth Amendment, like the Fifth, deals with the rights of the individual accused of a crime. Four specific rights are noted here: 1. The accused is entitled to a trial by an impartial jury and the trial must be swift and public. 2. The accused has the right to a lawyer for his defense 3. The accused has the right to face his accusers. 4. The accused has the right to produce witnesses for his case.

The Seventh Amendment: In lawsuits seeking more than an award of twenty dollars, the government can’t deny a right to trial by a jury whose decision is final.

The Eighth Amendment restricts what the government can do in criminal cases. There are three rights declared here: 1. the government can’t punish the accused by demanding an excessive amount of bail, 2. Nor can they impose excessive fines on the guilty 3. Nor can they execute cruel and unusual punishment upon the guilty.

The Ninth Amendment: The rights mentioned in the Constitution do not deny other human rights.

The Tenth Amendment: The Federal government can’t exceed the rights given to it in the Constitution, and any rights not mentioned in the Constitution go to the states and the individual.

I am neither a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, although I do know and have read the Constitution several times. Moreover, I have learned from many others who are such experts.

Here is one example concerning the 2nd Amendment from Prager University,

With that caution, I believe these form a reasonable interpretation of the Bill of Rights, however roughly expressed. Together they virtually scream of one overriding principle, that the individual citizen’s rights are of first importance.

The Bill of Rights Are Connected by the Idea that the Individual Citizen’s Rights are Paramount

The founders took great care to ensure the individual citizen’s rights in three key areas. The first was in the area of personal expression in various forms such as speech, in the press, and religious expression.

The second area was the right to personal safety and defense against even a government turned tyrannical. It was meant as a guarantee that other rights could be defended by the citizen should an attempt be made to take those rights away.

The third area was the right to be considered innocent of any crime unless one is proven guilty. This is the bedrock of American justice.

All of these ideas were unique in world history at the time, and remain rare in the world even today. Without all of them, the whole Constitution loses integrity and the citizen shrinks in importance.

Leftism, SocialismThe Leftist goal is advanced whenever individual rights are diminished in America. For at bottom, the individual is only relevant in the Socialist Left’s world to work for the goals of the group, as dictated, of course, from a central-planning edifice ruled by Leftist elites.

These ground-level principles of the Bill of Rights work to ensure individual liberty while evoking individual responsibility. Which of these principles might be considered the most important is debatable.

Many would say the right to bear arms in defense against enemies is most important. After all, if a citizen can’t defend his or her rights against a threat, no rights can’t be exercised freely at all.

However, others might say that the right to free speech is most important because if one can’t defend individual rights verbally or in writing, eventually those rights will be taken through government power.

Moreover, if the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is taken away, then the rights of speech and defense can be abrogated with arbitrary accusations of crimes by the government authorities. One doesn’t get a weapon or a forum while in jail.

The truth is that fervent battles against liberty are being waged by the Left within every part of American society. Battles aimed right at the heart of the Constitution’s protection of individual citizen’s freedoms.

The First Amendment is under attack constantly by those who would banish Christianity from the public square, as well as attacks by Antifa and the SJW’s of the Left. The Second Amendment is under assault by Leftist media and politicians, especially after the recent mass shootings.

The principle of being innocent until proven guilty is constantly undermined by the selective assignment of guilt first by the Left whenever the President or his supporters are involved.

America simply can’t afford to erode and possibly lose any of these bastions of individual liberty! The integrity of the Constitution must remain intact or the whole building of our free society will fall.

But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. James 1:25 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Scutter’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Adam Theo’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of DonkeyHotey’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Charles Fettinger’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Advertisements

Dangerous Over-reactions to the Recent Mass Shootings [Video]

Gun control

The recent mass shootings in El Paso, TX, and Dayton, Ohio this past weekend have once again turned the political spotlight on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Left always has its attacks primed for these eventualities, and as usual, their arguments are forceful demonstrations of folly.

Of course, that does not discourage the Left from screechings at conservatives, directly blaming President Trump, to calling for completely unconstitutional measures that would demonstrably violate the 2nd Amendment. None of those actions are unexpected from the Leftist core believers as well as their political shills.

This journal has warned before of the danger of trying to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. In this instance, the danger may be taking a surprising twist.

What is surprising, and alarming, is the reaction of some conservative law-makers and frankly, some statements from President Trump himself. He gave a critical speech about the shootings and gave some proposals which are ostensibly tailored to help reduce or prevent such horrific happenings in the future.

However, before I delve into the President’s words, I need to confront the absolute false narrative of the Left that Trump is a racist white supremacist and responsible for the shootings. Those on the Left, at whatever level of government or media they exist, are simply lying to advance their evil agenda.

Trump’s speech more clearly than ever should have satisfied the most ardent critics that he is not a racist or a white supremacist. He could not have more forcefully denounced both claims on a comprehensive level, but that doesn’t stop the malicious Left from lying about him and trying to silence him.

Not only has President Trump never said the racist things the Left keeps lying about, but his actions also demonstrate that he is not racist in any way. He spoke with sincerity, grace, and firmness in his response to the shootings.

His speech contained many statements that were both correct and consoling to the victims of these shootings. However, some of the proposed “solutions” are cause for real concern.

A Warning About The Mental Health Warning

Mass shootingsPresident Trump called for legal action which would deny the possession of firearms to people who are determined to be ‘mentally ill,’ in some manner. This certainly sounds like a reasonable proposition, however, as with many such measures, it is far more complicated and fraught with danger than most realize.

The first problem is akin to almost any type of government ‘solution’ proposed to almost any problem in society, the problem of abuse. It is not stretching the truth to say that for most laws if someone wants to abuse it in their favor, they can find a way to get what they want.

There are already forms of such laws denying firearms to those deemed mentally ill in certain places around America. One example is Florida’s “Baker Act” law, which provides for temporary commitment to a mental institution up to 72 hours with a minimum of due process.

The Baker Act is an existing law that provides for temporary institutionalization of individuals who meet certain criteria. It can only be used by specific authorized persons, including judges, mental health professionals, law enforcement personnel, and doctors. More importantly, the law is limited by the fact that those officials must have sound evidence suggesting that the individual might meet the Act’s definition for mental illness. In addition, he must pose a risk of harm to himself or others – or demonstrate self-neglect.

With this existing statute, there are at least some reasonable legal safeguards determining who can be subject to being held in custody. For instance,

people cannot be involuntarily institutionalized simply because they’re acting strangely, refuse to seek psychiatric examinations, or have occasional mood swings or outbursts.

The questions looming over this new proposal is ‘On what basis, and by whom, is someone to be declared too mentally ill to keep freedom and their 2nd Amendment rights?’ Moreover, if the existing measures are not adequate now, how far is the government willing to go to in this area?

Perhaps more frightening and direct measures will be deemed necessary. Which brings us to another, and more concerning subject, the idea of so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws.

The Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

Gun control laws‘Red Flag’ gun laws function as gun confiscation orders. In his speech, President Trump called them “extreme risk protection orders.”

They are designed to deny access to, or possession, of firearms to those deemed at extreme risk to commit violence with those firearms. They could be deemed as an ‘at extreme risk’ individual according to certain ‘red flags’ which those close to the person had determined might be dangerous.

John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and an expert on ‘Red Flag’ laws commented on the nature of these laws during an interview on “The Buck Sexton Show,” from August 5, 2019.

You’re trying to predict whether somebody’s going to go and commit a crime. …It’s kind of like the old Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report,” without the psychics.

This moves beyond the mental illness warning criteria to include things such as criminal history when evaluating whether or not someone should have a firearm. However, as Mr. Lott also points out, we already have access to criminal records and felonies as well as some misdemeanors already disqualify a person from owning a gun, so this is superfluous.

The potential for abuse lies in the additional legal measures these laws propose in order to confiscate someone’s guns. Some have suggested that simple arrests, even without a conviction, should be considered as possible ‘red flags’ to trigger the seizure of firearms.

The abuse comes into play easily when, for example, a disgruntled spouse or employee is the target. They can be essentially flagged as a threat to commit violence on the say-so of someone who doesn’t like them and is looking for an excuse to punish the offending party.

Some might ask, ‘Won’t these individuals be assessed by mental health professionals?’ Even if that is true, the record of mental health professionals in predicting future criminal behavior is abysmal. As author Rob Morse notes,

Psychiatrists who have access to complete medical records often have to assess if a patient will be violent. They make that assessment for the safety of the patient and for the safety of hospital staff. These doctors make the correct prediction 60% of the time when they are predicting behavior for the next 24 hours. That means they are slightly better than flipping a coin while they are looking a day into the future. Psychiatrists have no idea if the patient will be violent in the next week, the next month, or the next year. These highly educated and dedicated specialists can’t predict the future. That record will get worse as red-flag laws let non-professionals disarm near strangers with a phone call.

Moreover, this could easily result in making situations worse rather than better. Morse goes on to make this salient point.

Concealed carry holders are several times less likely than the police to shoot innocent people. Who is at risk when the police knock in the dark of night to confiscate legally owned firearms?

The danger of this becoming law is rapidly coming upon us, as Senator Lindsey Graham is already proposing ‘red-flag’ legislation. No details of his plan are available at present, except that he makes a point of mentioning that Trump seemed ‘supportive’ of it.

The Hate Crime ‘Death Penalty’ Threat

Inset.3.8.8.2019This is perhaps the most disturbing part of President Trump’s address. In a brief but powerful sentence, he called for the death penalty for both mass shooters those who commit “hate crimes.”

Admittedly, there is little time in such a short speech to elaborate on the meaning of this declaration. No real details about the proposal were presented there.

The danger lies within the very nature of the ‘hate crime’ designation. It is far too ambiguous a label to use for this extremely important issue.

The current legal definition of a hate crime according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation is,

…a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”

The FBI is quick to add that hate itself is not a crime, and thus they are committed to also protecting a person’s right to free speech. To be blunt, the FBI has not inspired a lot of trust among regular Americans since the exposure of their spying operations against a sitting president and the hate their operatives have displayed against Trump and his supporters.

So please forgive me if the assurances of the FBI do not really reassure me at this point. Moreover, the expansion of hate crime accusations and arrests in many nations are alarming, to say the least.

In fact, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court actually declared that certain types of religious speech qualify as hate crimes. In this case, it involved biblical speech against teaching homosexuality in public schools.

Should such offenses as these be punishable by death? Or would that only apply to certain groups in society, perhaps of the Christian variety?

Lest one think that this could not happen in America, consider this. In 2012, just seven years ago, no one was even considering banning people from social media for ‘misgendering’ a transgender man who claimed he was a woman.

Real Problems and Solutions Are Ignored

Inset.4.8.8.2019The true tragedy of this is that there are real problems with the amount of gun violence overall, and some real solutions to them which are being completely ignored while potshots are being taken at the 2nd Amendment, pun intended.

For example, in just the cases of mass shootings in the United States, one factor is more common in all of them since Colombine in 1999. The environment of the home and family.

If there’s a thread, it’s young men whose biological father was missing in their lives. After the Parkland school massacre in Florida, the Heritage Foundation cited a study showing that among the 25 most-cited school shooters since Columbine, 75 percent were reared in broken homes. Most, according to psychologist Peter Langman, an expert on school shooters, came from homes that also experienced infidelity, substance abuse, criminal behavior, domestic violence and child abuse.

It’s not racism, not ‘white supremacy,’ not even mental health, video games, and certainly not those who support the 2nd Amendment the most, law-abiding gun owners! It’s the absence of a father in the home.

Isn’t it strange how this particular metric is also a great predictor of criminal activity as well as mentally disturbed behavior? For instance, witness these statistics,

  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)

  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

Perhaps our political leaders should focus more on that very real problem if they aim to slow gun violence and violence itself in society. In fact, a large number of problems could be ameliorated if more families remained intact, but that is fodder for another time.

But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. James 1:25 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top image courtesy of Maryland GovPics Flickr page -Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Barrett Cook’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Obama44worst ever’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Paul Schreiber’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Quinn Dombrowski’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

The Penultimate Power-grab of The ‘New Left’ [Video]

Leftism and antifa

The Left has always been a movement which sought power to obtain their warped view of the ‘greater good.’ Moreover, that view has always trended toward Socialism in one variety or another.

Leftists search for power is through both cultural and political avenues. For the better portion of the last 60 years, the Left has used the public education system at all levels toward gaining influence and control in both.

Thus it was only a matter of time before their movement would produce powerful Leftist leaders in culture and politics. The Left’s quest in America reached its political height when Barack Obama was elected in 2008.

They exulted during Obama’s 8-year attempt to “fundamentally transform” America. Now the Obama years are behind us and Left’s anointed choice to ascend did not win.

In the three-plus years of President Trump’s first term, we have witnessed the emergence of a new set of Leftist politicians, an overtly and aggressive Socialist bunch, along with a more violent Left in society. This is the dangerous and desperate ‘new Left’ of today.

No Longer the Non-violent Left

AntifaToday’s new Left is becoming increasingly violent in pursuit of their nefarious goals. They are beginning to resemble the Leftists of the 1960s and 70s from whom they are descended.

The recent violence by the Fascist Left group Antifa is troubling, but it has not reached the level of protest bombings that characterized the earlier Leftists of the 20th century. Such violence of that level could yet occur if this is not effectively squashed.

In fact, recently an attempt was made by a committed Leftist, who claimed at least sympathy with Antifa in a written manifesto, at an I.C.E. facility in Tacoma, Washington to destroy it altogether.

“Anti-immigration enforcement protester, Willem Van Spronsen, 69, was armed with a loaded rifle and attempted to ignite a commercial-size propane tank attached to the detention facility,” Shawn Fallah, resident agent in charge of ICE Office of Professional Responsibility said in a written statement provided to Breitbart News. “This could have resulted in the mass murder of staff and detainees housed at the facility had he been successful at setting the tank ablaze, said Shawn Fallah, resident agent in charge of ICE Office of Professional Responsibility. These are the kinds of incidents that keep you up at night.”

However, there is one rather startling difference between these eras of Leftist unrest. During the 1960s there emerged a very hardy and effective counter-movement of non-violent protest, led by the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The modern ‘new Left’ has no such non-violent champion who is rallying the faithful in a peaceful manner. Moreover, it is increasingly clear that they aren’t interested in conducting any sort of non-violent campaign.

In fact, the violent anarchists also have the Leftmedia practically cheering them on when they practice violence. This excusing of violence was engaged in by many so-called “progressives” as well.

The only reason actions like these can go unpunished and under-reported is because of the source of the attack and the victim. Antifa is heralded by many progressives as people who simply oppose fascism. They’ve been praised by politicians ranging from Joe Biden to Mitt Romney.

No Longer the Lawful Left

Leftist violence, antifa

Portrait of Luftwaffe staff, Goering in center

Today’s Leftist spokespeople, in media and politics, are reminiscent of the testimony by Reichs Marshall Hermann Goering at the famous war-crimes trial in Nuremberg, Germany, after the allies had triumphed in World War II.

Before I venture into this potentially troubling area, I need to make something clear. I am not claiming that Leftists are Nazis. Rather I am claiming that the Left now employs the same methods to gain power as the Nazis did almost a century ago.

Goering was Hitler’s second-in-command and the head of the Luftwaffe, i.e. the German version of the Air Force. He was very close and loyal to Hitler right up to the very end of the Third Reich.

This was Goering’s answer to a specific question about whether or not Hitler and his cohorts had come to power “legally.”

Goering: Of course the Party had come to power in an entirely legal way, because the Party had been called upon by the Reich President according to the Constitution, and according to the principles in force the Party should have been called upon much earlier than that. The Party gained strength and came to power only by way of normal elections and the franchise law then valid.

The ‘Party’ Goering referred to was the National Socialist German Workers Party, aka the Nazis. A few moments later he explained the rationale for not simply gaining power, but trying to keep that power on a permanent basis.

Goering: It was a matter of course for us that once we had come into power we were determined to keep that power under all circumstances.We did not want power and governmental authority for power’s sake, but …We did not want to leave this any longer to chance, to elections, and parliamentary majorities, but we wanted to carry out the task to which we considered ourselves called. [italics added]

Antifa, Leftism, violence

SA Stormtrooper and his son.

Reviewing Goering’s testimony and other historical facts revealed some interesting items which seem very like the maneuvers of the ‘New Left.’ One such item was the formation and operation of the SA, aka “Storm Troopers,” or “Brownshirts.”

The SA was very instrumental in the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party. They functioned as an ‘army’ of thugs to intimidate Hitler’s foes.

the SA men protected party meetings, marched in Nazi rallies, and physically assaulted political opponents.

The astute readers of this publication, which I of course believe is all of you, will have already seen the parallels between the SA and Antifa today. The Left as a political movement is obviously in favor of Antifa and their like-minded allies and has been for a long time.

Antifa has obliged the Leftists and become their violent head-buster gang to deter conservatives in as many ways as they can. They are the modern storm-troopers of today and many in Law Enforcement are having their hands tied due to the cowardly cooperation of higher city officials.

Witness the pathetic excusing of Antifa in Portland after attacking journalist Andy Ngo, and the Police Association President’s critique of the mayor.

Portland Police Association President Daryl Turner condemned the violence but demanded that Mayor Wheeler allow police to do their jobs. “Where are the voices condemning the lawlessness and violence?” Turner asked in a statement. “If this violence had been directed at Antifa, there would have been an immediate call for an independent, outside investigation. “It’s our job to ensure that our community can peacefully protest without fear of violence but right now our hands are tied,” he added later in the statement.

Nor is Portland, Oregon the only place Leftists attacks are going unopposed by law enforcement. Recently an I.C.E. facility in Aurora, Colorado was stormed by protestors and they took down the American flag and ran up the Mexican flag in its place.

Instead of an attack on individuals, this was a shot at the symbol of the national sovereignty of America, on our soil! Law enforcement stayed away from the immediate scene did nothing to stop the disgraceful act.

There are a plethora of examples of unopposed violence from a number of Left-wing college campuses to public disasters where people have died, such as Charlottesville, VA, where enforcement response was virtually non-existant and could have prevented it. In other words, law enforcement officers were on the scene or nearby, and did not intervene in an adequate measure.

The Penultimate Power-grab Is Coming in 2020

AntifaWe have seen that the Left doesn’t hesitate to use violence to further their Socialist agenda. It has also been noted that the law is not a barrier for Leftists as they have and will continue to abuse as well as use the law when it’s to their advantage.

This brings us to the upcoming national election in 2020. The campaigning has already begun in both political parties and there is still another 15 months before the election.

The Left will make its next attempt for a penultimate grab at political power during the campaign and election process in those 15 months. However, control of the government in America is not the Left’s ultimate goal.

Rather, it is the last step they need to climb in order to reach the Leftist’s ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is not simply government control, but total and permanent government control.

The true idealists on the Left do not even realize that fact. They truly believe the goal is to make humanity a blissful Socialist utopia.

Goering also had declared that the Nazi party wanted power to make things better, not for power’s own sake. Personally, I believe Goering was lying, at least to himself, about his own ideals.

I believe that because Goering also noted that once they obtained the power they were not going to willingly give it up. Trust me, the Left might legally obtain power through our elections, as the Nazi party did but they won’t be satisfied there.

If this modern group of Leftist power-brokers obtains such power, they will try to keep it by any means deemed necessary, just like the Nazis in Germany. Whether the idealists on the Left realize a permanent hold on power for the sake of power is the ultimate goal or not, there are those on the Left who do understand and aim to have it.

Thus it is critical that the Left be opposed in this effort at every turn. Perhaps the most essential area is the preservation of American election integrity.

Things such as mandatory voter identification laws need to be in place, which President Trump supports. Moreover, it is vital that enforcement of election law ensuring that not one living non-citizen can vote in the election is also in place.

Finally, we must be about coming with renewed vigor to the LORD for His Divine aid. Pray for the President and all those who combat the Left on a daily basis, and ask God what you can do to help combat against this dangerous and vile attempt to destroy the nation.

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. Psalm 11:5 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top image courtesy of Kevin Harber’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Kaz Vorpal’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Ryan Crierie’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of RV1864’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of SS&SS’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Why We Must Not ‘Move on’ from Mueller [Video]

2082098332_2bedcff005_b

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee concerning the ‘Mueller Report’ which could not nail President Trump on any charges of or related to collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign. Mueller’s team of lawyers, dedicated Democrats, and Trump haters all, spent over two years investigating almost anyone remotely associated with the President.

As everybody in the world now knows, this team of ‘professionals’ could not find any evidence against President Trump of, well anything, which was clear when Mueller held his rather bizarre press conference on May 29, 2019. However, during that press conference, Mr. Mueller gave us this gem.

If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Mueller also stated that he would not testify and that anything he would say should that happen would simply repeat “his” report. However, it turned out that he was pressured enough to come before Congress and testify, and that performance is one the Leftists have come to regret.

A Pitiful And Revealing Testimony of Leftist Bias

The entire testimony was an over six-hour marathon in which Mr. Mueller stumbled and bumbled over his words and numerous times needed to be read back words from “his” report. Even so, with the careful questioning of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee some critical items became clear which might have been overlooked, and certainly would not have been mentioned at all on CNN or MSNBC or the alphabet network Leftmedia.

One of those items was exposed by the questioning of Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio.

Jordan’s questions cut through the fog to show the blatant bias of Mueller and his team. Mueller’s hit squad was more than happy to charge Republicans who worked with Trump, but not the man who began this sorry saga and lied to the FBI three times!

This was an abuse of the power of “prosecutorial discretion,” to the highest degree. It resulted in an especially gross miscarriage of justice with the case of General Michael  Flynn.

In addition to being a three-star General, Flynn was also a former Director of National Intelligence for President Trump. In a nutshell, the FBI arranged a deceptive ‘interview’ with Flynn and the agents who conducted it did so under false pretenses.

Mueller testimonyFlynn pleaded guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI, but only after the legal bills had forced him to go bankrupt and sell his sole remaining asset, the family home. He was also concerned about a possible threat from authorities to go after his son, who had accompanied Flynn as a business partner on overseas ventures.

Moreover, after the initial FBI agents conducted their interview, they did not believe Flynn had lied.

According to Flynn sentencing requests, then-deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe pressured then-National Security Adviser Flynn not to have a lawyer present during a seemingly relaxed, casual meeting with the FBI – the one that they said he lied at. …This might be part of the worst part of Michael Flynn’s political persecution: The agents interviewing him never thought he lied.

Andrew McCabe was later fired from the FBI for lying to the Office of the Inspector General in 2017. He lied three times, according to the OIG report, once to the FBI and twice to the OIG concerning whether he had authorized illegal leaks to the Wall Street Journal newspaper.

What he told investigators may also contradict what former FBI director James Comey testified before Congress, and indicates Obama’s Justice Department pressured the FBI during its investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Eventually, McCabe admitted he had authorized the leaks,  and yet, McCabe has not been charged to this day with any crime. Hopefully, Rep. Jordan is correct and the current investigation of the investigators under Attorney General Bill Barr can remedy that.

The Mysterious ‘Non-Exoneration’ Statement

The Mueller report was split into two sections. Part 1 dealt with the so-called Russia collusion matter, and Part 2 delved into whether or not Trump obstructed the collusion investigation itself.

The conclusion of Mueller’s team as stated in the report was that they could not find evidence of any collusion or obstruction of justice. However, a very mysterious and dangerous statement about not exonerating the President was also put into the report, and Rep. John Ratcliffe [R-TX] honed in on that statement.

Ratcliffe’s questioning revealed two critical points concerning this farce the Left has tried to push upon the American people, both of which connect with the statement that the Special Counsel’s findings “did not exonerate” the President of guilt.

The first point is that the Left’s obsession with taking down President Trump led them to believe they were justified in using tactics counter to every legal guideline that exists in America today. Tactics they would employ against no one else except someone they viewed as a mortal enemy, which in this case was Trump.

The second point concerns the nature of this particular tactic of non-exoneration as stated in the report. As Rep. Ratcliffe noted, this tries to invert the bedrock of American jurisprudence that every person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty!

The importance of that principle cannot be overstated. It is the reason that verdicts, whether by a judge or jury, are always stated as the defendant is “guilty” or “not guilty,” and never stated as innocent or exonerated of a crime.

It is never the job of any prosecutor to try to “prove” the innocence of anyone because that is already assumed until it can be proved they are guilty. If this cannot be done, exoneration is automatically conferred to the accused.

Mueller testimonyThus, President Trump is indeed exonerated here regardless of any statements in any report, or the Leftist’s attempts to make exoneration something that needs proving. However, it also should alert us to the dangerous precedent the statement could set if not challenged.

The peril is that if the Left is allowed to get away with such manipulation of the truth and ‘exoneration’ as a justice standard is embraced, true justice will become a thing of the past in America. We would become no better than any tyrannical government that has ever existed if anyone has to prove they didn’t commit a crime of which they were accused.

The blatant Leftist bias and the presumption of guilt rather than innocence are why we cannot just ‘move on’ from this. I hope and pray that A.G. Barr’s investigation into the Mueller travesty will result in an official repudiation of the investigative methods and the dangerous judicial philosophy which was behind it.

When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers. Proverbs 21:15 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top image courtesy of Hans Splinter’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of OhLizz’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Trending Topics 2019’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

America’s Prophecy… the End

In the night’s quiet, I arrived home from work. It was peaceful and calm, but in my subconscious mind, a volcano of thought was about to spew onto paper. Under a cloudless sky of endless frustration, my imagination exploded with a horrific thought. Our political arena comes to my mind, but before I let logic equate the scenario, I must refer to the place all things begin – the BIBLE. Allow me to share the first thing my eyes set on…

[During the first four trumpets, each nation will be forced to suspend its constitution so that martial law can be enacted. Given the size and scope of God’s wrath, world leaders will do whatever it takes to maintain control. Food and water supplies will be rationed. Medical care and energy reserves will be scarce. Hunger and thirst will drive millions of dazed and bewildered people crazy. Extreme situations require desperate solutions. Earth’s population has never seen a global crisis like the first four trumpets. The crisis will be so huge that political leaders in every nation will be set free of their constitutional obligations almost immediately. This freedom will permit them to enact and enforce laws they would have strongly opposed during normal times. The declaration of martial law will make it very easy for lawmakers to comply with the demands of Babylon’s clergy. Given the fact that something must be done to appease God, very few citizens will complain – at first.]

READ THE COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE: https://www.danielrevelationbiblestudies.com/Martial_Law.htm

Yes, my friends in Christ, martial law is written in scriptures! I highly encourage you to read the full article by following the link. It is profound to know America is in prophecy. My faith is in God as I now see the direction this nation is headed soon. I look no further than the borders of my yard for a source of peace for God gives me the strength to do all things through faith.

God blesses me with messages to relay to my followers, and many calls me eccentric or bazaar. As Jesus spoke, His messengers will be mocked and doubted, and I accept the role. However, this blog is not my prediction but straight out of the Bible, in the Book of Daniel.

I often speak, in quiet corners, about martial law in America. Today they soften those harsh words to “State of Emergency” situations. They are unpredictable and maybe scary but revealed in the Books of Daniel and Revelation. I will not attempt to interject my thoughts into this article for you will read it and draw your conclusions.

As we watch events unfold in the United States and the Middle East, the balance of power falls into the grip of the most powerful nations. The correlation between prophecy and scripture is uncanny. Our open borders, lawlessness, and sovereign territory are now infiltrated by self-servant beliefs, religions, and cults. They brainwash even our children, as prophesied, to believe other forms of capitalism is healthier than our longstanding democracy. The book, Lord of the Flies, comes to mind. No one can govern themselves without disastrous consequences!

In a pun, I say the word Bible stands for “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.” The truth is, it is written by philosophers and astrologers who predicted, two thousand years ago, the events we face now and in the near future. But, the prophet, Daniel, saw the vision of martial law, or loss of our liberty. How profound!

Daniel the Prophet

So, what would Jesus say to us today about America’s circumstances? I believe He would say though we can’t change the evilness of the world, but we can allow God to change us. Thoughts run deep, and I’m unable to put my writing tablet down long enough to pour another cup of coffee. How many of our friends and family members will live through martial law? How many will place God in their heart and soul for eternal salvation? Does it scare you many of us will never see our loved ones again?

My heart tremors for God is coming to rule… no doubt, it’s the beginning of the end.

http://www.danabicksauthor.com


SUBSCRIBE TODAY to my Newsletter and receive behind-the-scenes notes about the blogs and Christian news! Click this link:

www.danabicksauthor.com/subscribe-today

The Siege Against Christianity, Part 2 [Graphic Video]

In part one of this series, we saw that Christianity as a faith is persecuted throughout the world by hostile governments. The main threats to the existence of the faith there are direct attempts to physically extinguish or directly control Christianity.

As lethal as the persecution can be in nations where Christianity is outlawed, the effectiveness of such violence against the church is almost the reverse of what the governments desire. More and more the old saying the “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church,” is being fulfilled in modern times.

This is not to justify the terrible suffering of such persecution. It is only to state that many times the strongest and most prolific believers arise from the harshest of circumstances and attract the faithful through their God-given strength.

However, the most successful and insidious attacks against Christianity today come in a less official fashion. From both outside the church and within the fold, the dangers are serious and palpable.

A Dangerous Threat from Outside: Culture vs. Faith

Culture and ChristianityThe most serious outside threat to the Christian faith comes within nations where it is legal to practice, but it is generally despised in the popular culture. This situation is common among Western society today and manifests itself in a variety of ways.

A prominent example is the modern American cultural landscape. The sad fact is that the popular culture in the U.S.A. has for the most part aligned against actual Christian practice in a nation founded upon biblical principles.

Of course, Christianity and popular culture have always existed in a somewhat adversarial relationship. After all, Jesus Christ is the most counter-cultural figure in history.

Yet for most of America’s time as a nation, the culture and Christianity have lived in a society where both elements were freely engaged in without much more than an occasional peaceful, verbal disagreement.

The Civil War and the more-recent Civil Rights struggle are some important exceptions, but these did not make up the longest portions of our history. A cursory examination of society today quickly reveals that such peaceful, public engagement is no longer the norm.

For instance, take the case of one Mr. Jack Phillips. He is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado and is now the target of a third lawsuit for discrimination because he refused to bake a cake for a transgender person. The previous lawsuits failed yet of all the bakers in the Denver area, the LGBT community has consistently singled Phillips out because his faith will not permit him to make and decorate cakes with messages promoting deviant sexuality.

Christianity and culturePhillips is but one case of several with similar circumstances. One involved a bakery in Oregon that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, and they ended up closing the doors of the bakery because of the costs.

It isn’t only threats through lawsuits that comprise attacks against Christian faith and practice. The line of harassment and assault has also been crossed, particularly when involving peaceful Christian pro-life demonstrators in public.

One prominent instance occurred in April of this year which involved an elected state official from Pennsylvania. You may have heard or read of this incident.

Pennsylvania state Rep. Brian Sims (D) broadcast himself harassing a pro-life woman praying outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia. Sims repeatedly shoved his phone in the woman’s face and boisterously declared, “Shame on you,” ridiculing the demonstrator for more than eight minutes over her opposition to abortion.

There are numerous other examples of such actions, as well as multiple examples of physical assaults. Two of these that made recent news reports and they involved women as the attackers.

One of the attacks happened on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill when a woman attacked and punched a man holding signs at a pro-life display. Another less publicized assault occurred in Roanoke, Virginia when a 15-year-old girl was punched in the face by a woman who tried to steal the girl’s pro-life sign.

particularly brutal example of one assault in January of 2019 is noteworthy to grasp the growing intensity of these kinds of acts. The following video contains graphic violence which may be disturbing.

What began as a peaceful effort to support the pro-life movement quickly changed as Mr. Roberts kept telling this man that ‘Jesus loves you.’ For that proclamation, he was punched repeatedly, without retaliation or attempting to defend himself, and sustained severe injuries as a result.

Targeting the Peaceful and Public Exercise of Christianity

Perhaps some might claim that these aren’t attacks against Christianity as a faith. I would say that though they may not target beliefs, they certainly target those who peacefully exercise their beliefs.

This brings us to another source of the siege against Christianity, the “non-profit” social organizations that defend the mythical “separation of church and state,” which is not in the Constitution of the United States. Organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

This group, in particular, has used the courts to attack any public practice of Christianity from simple prayer, to college sports teams having Chaplains, to WWII memorials with a statue of Jesus. If they can somehow construe a violation of church-state separation, the lawsuits never end, even though they lose most of the time.

Christianity and societyOf course, groups like FFRF and the ACLU would claim that they do not target Christians with their many legal tactics. However, I have not heard of such legal actions from them against most other religions, especially against practitioners of Islam.

In fact, the FFRF admits they do not go after Muslims. Their explanation is that they only act on complaints brought to them by their members, and they don’t get many concerning Muslims.

FFRF accordingly receives very few complaints about Muslim violations. We receive very few complaints about Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan or other minority religious entanglements with government, either.

The ACLU and others operate in the same manner while “defending” religious freedom. Which might bring one to ask, ‘Who are the members that bring complaints, and who are they associated with?’

There is one rather extensive but surprisingly little known organization that it itself in concert with the FFRF and the ACLU in church-state separation stances. It is the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, a group this author was very aware of during my 20 -years as a Baptist minister.

The BJCPA is also the first example of what we will examine in part three, the threats to Christianity from within the Church.

If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. John 15:19 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Paul Tomlin’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Blink O’fanaye’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Victoria Pickering’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Ryan Somma’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Why We ‘Object’ to the Left [Video]

Leftism

I begin with a note of full disclosure that I am an unabashed fan of almost all things Star Trek. In fact, I have been a fan since I viewed the original series when it ran the first time.

My favorite character from that series has remained my favorite Star Trek character of all; ‘Mr. Spock,’ masterfully portrayed by the late Leonard Nimoy. I was enthralled as a youth by Spock’s embrace of logical thinking and calm clarity in very sticky situations.

Among the multitude of insightful statements made by ‘Mr. Spock’ one, in particular, seemed to apply quite well to the current state of mind of the Left in our society. It is from one of my favorite episodes with the title, “The Squire of Gothos.”

Spock is verbally confronted by an almost omnipotent, yet rather childish, alien being known as “Squire Trelane” who has captured the Enterprise crew.

TRELANE TO SPOCK: I don’t know if I like your tone. It’s most challenging. That’s what you’re doing, challenging me?

SPOCK: I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without constructive purpose.

The two phrases, “intellect without discipline,” and “power without constructive purpose” describe the Leftist mentality and goals to a tee. As conservatives, we should oppose the Left and forcefully state what ‘Spock’ declared to ‘Trelane,’ “We object to you!”

The Left Epitomizes ‘Intellect without discipline’

AOCThe prevailing mentality of the modern Left is the epitome of ‘intellect without discipline.’ On just about any subject that requires a modicum of clear thinking and logic, Leftists have zero discipline.

Intellectual discipline demands at least an attempt to be accurate and truthful when presenting arguments, and the Left routinely ignores this principle in every area. A prime example was recently presented via the voluminously ignorant Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex [D-NY] commenting about illegal aliens in government detention.

In a tweet she remarked:

“The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border,…That is exactly what they are. They are concentration camps.”

Note that AOC didn’t simply compare the temporary border detention centers to concentration camps. She literally called them concentration camps.

This level of ignorance combined with defiant confidence in spite of the truth is evidence of a completely undisciplined intellect. That is particularly objectionable in someone charged to represent American citizens.

Examples of this abound among the Left in every arena of life. The whole “climate change” hysteria is a hoax that demonstrates undisciplined intellect on a massive scale, all for political payoffs.

The video reveals the lengths to which ‘climate change’ advocates will go to foster their false and destructive narrative upon everyone else. As conservatives, we rightly object to this demonstration of ‘intellect without discipline,’ and the inevitable harm that results.

However, there is another aspect which needs to be explored. That is, what motivates the Left to push for nonsensical and demonstrably destructive changes in all facets of human existence.

As it happens in human affairs, the motive at the bottom is power and control. Make no mistake, for the Left, it is power without any constructive purpose whatsoever. In fact, the power they seek is inherently destructive to Western society and freedom itself.

The Left Seeks the Power that Destroys

LeftistsIt is no secret that those on the Left seek ever-increasing influence and power within Western nations, as well as globally. Such efforts are aimed at establishing the authority of the state in a Marxist/Socialist manner in the assurance that this would herald the illusionary utopian society of Leftist imaginations.

There is a substantial factual difficulty with the purposes of the Left. At every point in time and at every place on the planet where Socialism has been established, the results are always destructive.

The most prominent example of this today is, of course, the devastation experienced in Venezuela. What was once the most prosperous country in South America, with the largest oil reserves in the world, is now reduced to the status of the third-world nation whose people are starving.

Aside from chubby dictator Nicolas Maduro and his fellow elites, the Venezuelan people are running out of food and medical supplies. In their starving desperation, citizens have resorted to breaking into zoos to slaughter and eat the also malnourished animals; buffalo, pigs and horses are top choices on the menu.

SocialismMoreover, we should not forget the horrific destruction of Socialism throughout history, most notably the bloody tally of the 20th century. It is noteworthy that many on the Left specialize in denouncing Nazism while forgetting that Hitler’s ideology was simply another form of Socialism.

Understand that Socialism has various pedigrees, but the same evil end. The Nazi party in Germany was officially known as the “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Together with Germany’s National Socialism, the Communist Socialists such as the old USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and Communist China have racked up a body count of over 150 million people!

If one took a cursory look at any portion of life or any sector of culture, a plethora of destructive examples rear their heads in constitutional rights, education, science, politics, entertainment, media, religion, marriage, and the family. Consequently, the question becomes, ‘How do conservatives best object to the use of ‘undisciplined intellect’ towards no ‘constructive purpose?’

How to Object to the Left

I believe the most effective way to object to the Left is with determined, steadfast and immovable opposition to their destructive aims. We must do so with a manifestly disciplined intellect and striving toward a truly constructive purpose.

This means employing a disciplined intellect to invariably counter the Left’s fallacies with actual facts. It means never letting them go unchallenged when making their fraudulent claims.

In order for this to happen, we can no longer remain uninformed or unequipped to counter the destructive squawking of Socialists. A continuing innocent ignorance will only serve to empower the Left toward its destructive goals.

Social Media censorshipThis also requires the ability to engage Leftist arguments in the open arena of social media. Unfortunately, the social media giants of our time are awash with the vapid ideas of Leftists who control the most sought-after platforms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, making it difficult to have opposing views published and widely disseminated.

There are four possible responses to such Leftist efforts to censor and banish conservatism from social media. One is to attempt creating a new social media platform allowing a free exchange of ideas, however, that task is beyond most of us but a select and daring few.

The second response is to exclusively support and use alternative social media that operate with freedom of speech, meaning to abandon the use of entities such as Facebook altogether. The prospects for success in that venture are only slightly greater than creating one’s own platform from scratch.

The third response is a hybrid of utilizing alternative media as well as the social media goliaths of today. This is a more promising alternative, though I believe it is still short of the real solution.

The fourth response is likely the most effective in both the short and long run. It is a push to break up the social media monopolizing of the Left by advocating legal action.

Rather than take unnecessary space to explain the justification and need for this, I’ll let Bill Whittle lay out the case in the following video.

A thousand more words would not suffice to comprehensively catalog all the incidents of conservative voices being banned or demonetized by the huge social media machine. This must be fought with determined effort until the goal of a truly free internet is realized.

The most precious item destroyed by Leftist ideals is individual liberty. The Socialist Left would rather each individual ‘know their place’ as part of a slave-like society forfeiting all rights to the omnipotent government.

Conservatism inherently believes in individual freedom under representative government accountable to its citizens. Our solution to the purveyance of “bad” destructive speech is to encourage more “good” constructive speech and be free to announce and support it publically.

It is not our aim to ban or shut down Leftist voices whether on social media or not. It is instead our aim to ensure an open and upfront debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Sooner or later [hopefully sooner] we can realize this aim, and a renewed hope for the future can come to light, with God’s help. As was said long ago, we should

pray as if everything depends on God, work as if everything depends on you.

Therefore, with redoubled effort and conviction, let us stridently stand and declare to the Left, “We object to you!” And let us lean upon the LORD who is with us to proclaim and act upon the truth.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Images courtesy of Chris Potter’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Dimitri Rodriguez’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Bronson Abbott’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Ivy Dawned’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Matthew Semrau’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

The Inevitable Tyrannical Inequality of The Equality Act [Video][Update]

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a piece of legislation with the deceptive title of “The Equality Act.” This title is not simply an inaccurate representation of the act itself, it is, in fact, a large step toward codifying strict societal inequality.

HR-5 is the designation given to “The Equality Act,” which was passed on May 17, 2019, in the House. It now heads to the U.S. Senate where the prospects of passage are somewhat bleak.

However, this should not be taken as either the final word by the government nor as a solid victory if the legislation does not pass. HR-5 is a harmful expansion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes of people.

This effort is extremely dangerous and potentially deadly for the innocent victims of ‘trans-fraud’, the helpless children. Children whose lives will be needlessly traumatized and for almost half of them will result in death by their own hands.

Why Is This Happening Now?

This journal has recorded the steady progress of so-called ‘transgender rights’ movement in the current culture in several articles. What was once universally known as a serious mental illness has become enshrined as some sort of human ‘right’ in popular, leftist culture today.

The question which arises when considering the current in-your-face promotion of transgenderism is just how did this happen? Put another way, why is this complete about-face happening now, as compared to just seven years ago, when there was no political support for the issue and very little indication that the popular culture would embrace it?

Three key events since the end of 2012 which have enabled those in favor of ‘transgenderism’ to boldly crusade for a slice of the newly created additions to established human rights. The first was a little reported action in 2013 which granted a measure of legitimacy to ‘transgenderism.’

The Diagnostics and Statistics Manual is the “bible” of psychiatric diagnosis.

In the pre-2013 DSM-IV, anyone “identifying” as other than their biological gender had Gender Identity Disorder. As a “disorder,” it was a mental illness. Today, due to political and cultural pressure, the DSM-V calls this condition Gender Dysphoria. Such a classification is not considered a mental illness. Rather it is considered a kind of psychological discomfort and confusion. This is how mental illness can be masked as a difficult, but “normal,” reality.

18818913278_cea20fe699_mThe second was virtually a cultural event, well-publicized and celebrated on the Left. It was the revealing and popularizing of a very famous celebrity as a ‘transgendered’ person in 2015.

Transgenderism rocketed to social popularity with the ‘transition’ of Bruce Jenner from a male to appearing as the ‘female’ Caitlyn Jenner. He appeared on the cover of Vanity Fairmagazine’s, July 2015, issue. He was also celebrated on ESPN’s Espy Awards later in 2015. Since then he has greatly enhanced the cultural status of the transgender movement.

The third and final event was the granting of federal government approval of the ‘transgender rights’ cause. This was accomplished by former President Barack Obama in 2016.

The Obama administration is sending out an edict today [5/13/2016] to every school district in the country, insisting they open bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers to all children, regardless of sex, or risk federal discrimination lawsuits and yanked federal funds. Schools must treat children as transgender and thus entitled to open facilities access as soon as parents say they are, not after a medical diagnosis or birth certificate change.

These events and a relentless campaign of Leftist intimidation and virtue-signaling have brought America to the “Equality Act.” The consequences of passing this tyrannical insanity are dire and reach far beyond sexuality and gender confusion.

Tyrannical Inequality Is Inevitable Under the “Equality Act”

Should the “Equality Act” become law, inequality and total tyranny will follow sooner rather than later. In fact, various forms of tyrannical behavior are afoot even now and it is targeting traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.

One of the most recent examples of such action occurred this past Wednesday, June 12, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Watch as a street preacher of the gospel is denied his freedom of speech and religion by the state.

Note that it was the peaceful preacher who was the victim of harassment and assault, yet he was the only one arrested. This demonstration of force by the police violated this man and his small group’s rights and manifested both tyranny and inequality by their unequal enforcement of the law.

This man was guilty of nothing except offering the gospel of Jesus Christ to a group of gay pride demonstrators. Perhaps the most salient point in the video was made by one Christian commenting to the camera after the pastor was arrested.

We did not form a mob, a mob was formed against us.

This is the consistent method of the Left on virtually any subject nowadays, especially concerning the LGBT issue. Form a “mob” of one kind or another and attack by emoting rather than engage in reasonable discussion.

46182496122_8560c4025d_mHowever, the facts, in this case, uphold the actions in the video, and we will see this descend upon America with force should the “Equality Act” become established as law. Here are some of the disastrous consequences that would follow.

  • the category of male or female) would be altered to include (undefined) “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” everywhere the word “sex” appears in federal non-discrimination law. …

  • It would force compliance of the radical (and lunatic) LGBT agenda into every person’s life – in businesses, public accommodations, jury selection, schools, hospitals and clinics, social life, even churches!

  • It writes into federal law radical concepts (“sexual orientation” and “gender identity”) and creates a protected class for people with a psychiatric disorder (“gender dysphoria”).

  • It gives only minimal, vague definitions for the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” guaranteeing that legal chaos will ensue. For example, many radicals consider pedophilia a “sexual orientation” – which could end up becoming protected!

  • Goodbye to freedom of religion on LGBT issues. Many have noted that religious speech critical of “sexual orientation and gender identity” could be considered unlawful discrimination. Not even churches will be exempt as they could be considered “public accommodations” (“a place or establishment that provides … gathering…; any establishment that provides a good, service, or program”).

The Most Vulnerable Are the Potential Victims

[Update] In another example of how far the Left will go to push the insanity of transgenderism, the exploitation of mentally handicapped individuals is not out-of-bounds for their malevolent agenda.

In a clip released by CNN you will see how the Left is now pushing Down Syndrome individuals into drag in order to make money off of them. We can tell the Down Syndrome people are not interested in the drag aspect, but enjoy the attention they get on stage. What the left is doing is absolutely disgusting and abusive for taking advantage of the weak in our society.

That video clip is now labeled as “no longer available,” and thank the LORD for that! I saw it two days ago but delayed the update for this reason. I work directly with mentally disabled people including some with Down Syndrome. When I first saw this, I was incensed and for a bit, my mind was filled with some unChristian thoughts toward the purveyors of this abuse! I needed to take that to prayer and let the LORD work on my attitude before I published this update.

Anyone who has followed the continual push for so-called ‘transgender rights’ knows that it is the most vulnerable among us, the children, who are the targeted victims. These advocates are not content with adults mutilating their bodies in obedience to signals from an ill mind.

670021031_931e226cdb_mThus it is the children who are placed as priority candidates for insane actions because mentally disturbed adults must justify their fetish-like obsession. These adults, in some cases even the parents are, wittingly or no, targeting their toddlers for the destruction of their psyche and a short-lived, hellish existence on earth.

Why would any truly loving parent visit this on their young children? The answer is that no loving parent in their right mind would subject their children to such abuse.

A prime example of this is taking place now in the U.K. where a mentally ill couple is engaged in helping their 5-year-old son ‘transition’ to become a girl. This couple consists of a 21-year-old heterosexual woman and her companion, a 27-year-old woman named “Greg” who has ‘transitioned’ to the appearance of a man.

Greg claims their five-year-old son is “adamant she is a girl,” citing the boy’s affinity for dressing up as a princess from the popular Disney film “Frozen.” “They say it’s cruel we let her wear a dress but is it not more cruel to do nothing when you’ve got a kid who’s so adamant she’s a girl she’s ripping her hair off and banging her head off the walls?” said Greg.

What seems obvious is that this child of only five years has imagined he wants to become a girl and the ‘parents’ have never discouraged this, in fact, they have only encouraged and strengthened his nascent resolve. The instability and insecurity of the adults are condemning this child to a horrible life without a chance of even experiencing childhood.

Moreover, sane and loving parents would respond to this boy’s angry displays with a firm hand and the hair-pulling and head-banging would cease. If the behavior continued afterward, the next step would be to seek medical help and treatment for possible mental illness from a responsible doctor who knows the facts about children’s whims.

…the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress.

However, that will never happen because it would mean the parents would have to admit that they themselves are mentally ill and are inflicting their illness upon the child. Moreover, in the U.K. transgender ‘rights’ advocates are celebrated both politically and culturally dooming the boy ‘Jayden’ to grow up under enormous pressure to follow-though and begin harmful hormone treatments in a few years even if he changed his mind and decided against ‘transitioning.’ 

This is not a problem confined to Europe. There are various examples of such sentiment in America as well, as I wrote in a previous post.

There are also some in America specifically targeting children as young as 4 years old. This tactic began to surface about 3 years ago in custody battles during divorce proceedings.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians. …“…first began hearing from distraught parents in this situation in 2016 and in 2017, I heard from seven families in as many different states in this situation. In all but one case the child was a 15 year-old girl who never had any sexual identity confusion prior to her parent’s divorce,” Cretella said. “The other case involved 4-year-old triplet boys whose mother desperately wanted a girl. The mother was a psychologist herself and had cross-dressed one of the boys for two years, insisting that it was his idea. In each of the seven cases the guardian ad litems and judges removed the right to medical consent and/or custody from the parent who objected to transition with puberty blockers and hormones.”

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are not well-studied and thus the harmful side effects are also not well-known. The physical damage of these potent and potentially dangerous drugs was not considered by the judges or the mother in this case.

6936743236_8ec5a03b63_mIt is noteworthy that the punishment from the judge was aimed at the guardians or parents “who objected to transition with puberty blockers and hormones.”! States ranging from California to South Dakota have presented legislation which would make empower insanity and make normal, loving parents outlaws pitted against their children.

The “Equality Act” would ensure this disturbing behavior as legal nationwide and doom children as young as three or four to the vicious whims of adults who cannot grapple with biological realities. Parents who object would watch the child ripped from their arms and placed with others who were more in line with the Left and its demented views.

Our society has now come to a point of no return, a cultural crossing of the Rubicon with the ‘transgender’ movement and its implications. The “Equality Act” must be defeated in the Senate and if it [heaven forbid] reaches the President’s desk, it must be vetoed.

If not, there may come a time very soon when Christians of conscience will have to defy the law in order to save children and show the better way of Christ to them and to the lost and disturbed adults involved as well.

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:13-14 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Senate Democrats Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Mike Mozart’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Andy Michael’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Todd Huffman’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of OhLizz’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

 

The Inevitable Tyrannical Inequality of The Equality Act [Video]

Equality Act LGBT

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a piece of legislation with the deceptive title of “The Equality Act.” This title is not simply an inaccurate representation of the act itself, it is, in fact, a large step toward codifying strict societal inequality.

HR-5 is the designation given to “The Equality Act,” which was passed on May 17, 2019, in the House. It now heads to the U.S. Senate where the prospects of passage are somewhat bleak.

However, this should not be taken as either the final word by the government nor as a solid victory if the legislation does not pass. HR-5 is a harmful expansion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes of people.

This effort is extremely dangerous and potentially deadly for the innocent victims of ‘trans-fraud’, the helpless children. Children whose lives will be needlessly traumatized and for almost half of them will result in death by their own hands.

Why Is This Happening Now?

This journal has recorded the steady progress of so-called ‘transgender rights’ movement in the current culture in several articles. What was once universally known as a serious mental illness has become enshrined as some sort of human ‘right’ in popular, leftist culture today.

The question which arises when considering the current in-your-face promotion of transgenderism is just how did this happen? Put another way, why is this complete about-face happening now, as compared to just seven years ago, when there was no political support for the issue and very little indication that the popular culture would embrace it?

Three key events since the end of 2012 which have enabled those in favor of ‘transgenderism’ to boldly crusade for a slice of the newly created additions to established human rights. The first was a little reported action in 2013 which granted a measure of legitimacy to ‘transgenderism.’

The Diagnostics and Statistics Manual is the “bible” of psychiatric diagnosis.

In the pre-2013 DSM-IV, anyone “identifying” as other than their biological gender had Gender Identity Disorder. As a “disorder,” it was a mental illness. Today, due to political and cultural pressure, the DSM-V calls this condition Gender Dysphoria. Such a classification is not considered a mental illness. Rather it is considered a kind of psychological discomfort and confusion. This is how mental illness can be masked as a difficult, but “normal,” reality.

18818913278_cea20fe699_mThe second was virtually a cultural event, well-publicized and celebrated on the Left. It was the revealing and popularizing of a very famous celebrity as a ‘transgendered’ person in 2015.

Transgenderism rocketed to social popularity with the ‘transition’ of Bruce Jenner from a male to appearing as the ‘female’ Caitlyn Jenner. He appeared on the cover of Vanity Fairmagazine’s, July 2015, issue. He was also celebrated on ESPN’s Espy Awards later in 2015. Since then he has greatly enhanced the cultural status of the transgender movement.

The third and final event was the granting of federal government approval of the ‘transgender rights’ cause. This was accomplished by former President Barack Obama in 2016.

The Obama administration is sending out an edict today [5/13/2016] to every school district in the country, insisting they open bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers to all children, regardless of sex, or risk federal discrimination lawsuits and yanked federal funds. Schools must treat children as transgender and thus entitled to open facilities access as soon as parents say they are, not after a medical diagnosis or birth certificate change.

These events and a relentless campaign of Leftist intimidation and virtue-signaling have brought America to the “Equality Act.” The consequences of passing this tyrannical insanity are dire and reach far beyond sexuality and gender confusion.

Tyrannical Inequality Is Inevitable Under the “Equality Act”

Should the “Equality Act” become law, inequality and total tyranny will follow sooner rather than later. In fact, various forms of tyrannical behavior are afoot even now and it is targeting traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.

One of the most recent examples of such action occurred this past Wednesday, June 12, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Watch as a street preacher of the gospel is denied his freedom of speech and religion by the state.

Note that it was the peaceful preacher who was the victim of harassment and assault, yet he was the only one arrested. This demonstration of force by the police violated this man and his small group’s rights and manifested both tyranny and inequality by their unequal enforcement of the law.

This man was guilty of nothing except offering the gospel of Jesus Christ to a group of gay pride demonstrators. Perhaps the most salient point in the video was made by one Christian commenting to the camera after the pastor was arrested.

We did not form a mob, a mob was formed against us.

This is the consistent method of the Left on virtually any subject nowadays, especially concerning the LGBT issue. Form a “mob” of one kind or another and attack by emoting rather than engage in reasonable discussion.

46182496122_8560c4025d_mHowever, the facts, in this case, uphold the actions in the video, and we will see this descend upon America with force should the “Equality Act” become established as law. Here are some of the disastrous consequences that would follow.

  • the category of male or female) would be altered to include (undefined) “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” everywhere the word “sex” appears in federal non-discrimination law. …

  • It would force compliance of the radical (and lunatic) LGBT agenda into every person’s life – in businesses, public accommodations, jury selection, schools, hospitals and clinics, social life, even churches!

  • It writes into federal law radical concepts (“sexual orientation” and “gender identity”) and creates a protected class for people with a psychiatric disorder (“gender dysphoria”).

  • It gives only minimal, vague definitions for the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” guaranteeing that legal chaos will ensue. For example, many radicals consider pedophilia a “sexual orientation” – which could end up becoming protected!

  • Goodbye to freedom of religion on LGBT issues. Many have noted that religious speech critical of “sexual orientation and gender identity” could be considered unlawful discrimination. Not even churches will be exempt as they could be considered “public accommodations” (“a place or establishment that provides … gathering…; any establishment that provides a good, service, or program”).

The Most Vulnerable Are the Potential Victims

Anyone who has followed the continual push for so-called ‘transgender rights’ knows that it is the most vulnerable among us, the children, who are the targeted victims. These advocates are not content with adults mutilating their bodies in obedience to signals from an ill mind.

670021031_931e226cdb_mThus it is the children who are placed as priority candidates for insane actions because mentally disturbed adults must justify their fetish-like obsession. These adults, in some cases even the parents are, wittingly or no, targeting their toddlers for the destruction of their psyche and a short-lived, hellish existence on earth.

Why would any truly loving parent visit this on their young children? The answer is that no loving parent in their right mind would subject their children to such abuse.

A prime example of this is taking place now in the U.K. where a mentally ill couple is engaged in helping their 5-year-old son ‘transition’ to become a girl. This couple consists of a 21-year-old heterosexual woman and her companion, a 27-year-old woman named “Greg” who has ‘transitioned’ to the appearance of a man.

Greg claims their five-year-old son is “adamant she is a girl,” citing the boy’s affinity for dressing up as a princess from the popular Disney film “Frozen.” “They say it’s cruel we let her wear a dress but is it not more cruel to do nothing when you’ve got a kid who’s so adamant she’s a girl she’s ripping her hair off and banging her head off the walls?” said Greg.

What seems obvious is that this child of only five years has imagined he wants to become a girl and the ‘parents’ have never discouraged this, in fact, they have only encouraged and strengthened his nascent resolve. The instability and insecurity of the adults are condemning this child to a horrible life without a chance of even experiencing childhood.

Moreover, sane and loving parents would respond to this boy’s angry displays with a firm hand and the hair-pulling and head-banging would cease. If the behavior continued afterward, the next step would be to seek medical help and treatment for possible mental illness from a responsible doctor who knows the facts about children’s whims.

…the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress.

However, that will never happen because it would mean the parents would have to admit that they themselves are mentally ill and are inflicting their illness upon the child. Moreover, in the U.K. transgender ‘rights’ advocates are celebrated both politically and culturally dooming the boy ‘Jayden’ to grow up under enormous pressure to follow-though and begin harmful hormone treatments in a few years even if he changed his mind and decided against ‘transitioning.’ 

This is not a problem confined to Europe. There are various examples of such sentiment in America as well, as I wrote in a previous post.

There are also some in America specifically targeting children as young as 4 years old. This tactic began to surface about 3 years ago in custody battles during divorce proceedings.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians. …“…first began hearing from distraught parents in this situation in 2016 and in 2017, I heard from seven families in as many different states in this situation. In all but one case the child was a 15 year-old girl who never had any sexual identity confusion prior to her parent’s divorce,” Cretella said. “The other case involved 4-year-old triplet boys whose mother desperately wanted a girl. The mother was a psychologist herself and had cross-dressed one of the boys for two years, insisting that it was his idea. In each of the seven cases the guardian ad litems and judges removed the right to medical consent and/or custody from the parent who objected to transition with puberty blockers and hormones.”

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are not well-studied and thus the harmful side effects are also not well-known. The physical damage of these potent and potentially dangerous drugs was not considered by the judges or the mother in this case.

6936743236_8ec5a03b63_mIt is noteworthy that the punishment from the judge was aimed at the guardians or parents “who objected to transition with puberty blockers and hormones.”! States ranging from California to South Dakota have presented legislation which would make empower insanity and make normal, loving parents outlaws pitted against their children.

The “Equality Act” would ensure this disturbing behavior as legal nationwide and doom children as young as three or four to the vicious whims of adults who cannot grapple with biological realities. Parents who object would watch the child ripped from their arms and placed with others who were more in line with the Left and its demented views.

Our society has now come to a point of no return, a cultural crossing of the Rubicon with the ‘transgender’ movement and its implications. The “Equality Act” must be defeated in the Senate and if it [heaven forbid] reaches the President’s desk, it must be vetoed.

If not, there may come a time very soon when Christians of conscience will have to defy the law in order to save children and show the better way of Christ to them and to the lost and disturbed adults involved as well.

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:13-14 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Senate Democrats Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Mike Mozart’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Andy Michael’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Todd Huffman’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of OhLizz’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

The “Overlord” Factor: 75 Years Later [Video]

The 'Overlord' Factor: 75 Years Later

Landing on Omaha beach in Normandy, June 6, 1944

Thursday, June 6, 2019, marks the 75th anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Europe by the Allied forces in World War II. That monumental battle, code-named “Operation Overlord,” was the definitive turning point which led to the total defeat of Hitler’s Third Reich less than one year later.

The invasion was the result of many months of meticulous planning combined with fortuitous events both in the battlefield arena and the political atmospheres of both the Allied and Axis powers. The victory at the beaches of Normandy was also the result of incredible valor by the warriors who fought against the heinous enemy, thousands of whom gave their lives and are today memorialized on those very beaches.

However, with all of these factors put together, on the very eve of launching this enormous attack, it looked like “Overlord” might not be carried out at all. It required a last-minute and very small window of a mini-weather-miracle for “D-Day” to go forward.

The Planning, Peril, and Politics of “Overlord”

D-Day

Planning for the D-Day invasion formerly began in June of 1943, after the May 1943 “Trident Conference.” Prior to then, there was much disagreement between British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and American President Franklin Roosevelt about launching an invasion at all.

Churchill at first did not favor a massive invasion force taking the fight directly to Hitler’s forces. He instead wanted to conduct a campaign of smaller attacks against the Nazis from the sea.

The Trident Conference in May 1943 featured another confrontation over the invasion of Europe. This time, Roosevelt got his way (for the most part): Churchill committed Britain to an invasion of France by May 1944. There was little to the agreement other than a very loose timetable and the questions of who, where, how and when were left very open.

However, the cooperation between the allies, especially when dealing with Russia as the other large country against the Axis powers, was initially rocky at best. The one, unshakeable factor that united them all was summed up by Roosevelt’s announcement at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943.

FDR made a surprise declaration at the conference that this war would only end with the “unconditional surrender,” of Germany. Both Churchill and Stalin agreed with that goal.

The third nation of the Axis, Italy, had already begun to crumble and later in 1943, they would surrender. This made both the opportunity and urgency for an invasion paramount.

A successful landing and foothold in France would force Hitler into a two-front war. An eventual allied victory was assured from that point on.

The Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, American General Dwight D. Eisenhower, was responsible for the military planning and execution of “Operation Overlord.” The success of the plan was basically dependant on two things.

It had to be a surprise attack, and it had to be an attack with overwhelming force. How the D-Day invasion was planned and conducted is summarized well in the following video from Prager University.

 

The Legacy of D-Day

The legacy of D-Day is multi-faceted to be sure, however, perhaps the most important facet is discovered by something President Roosevelt had in mind when he determined that Germany must submit to “unconditional surrender.”

Roosevelt pushed for unconditional surrender to avoid the political mixup that followed the First World War. In 1918 Germany sued for peace on the basis of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, but the Versailles Treaty proved much harsher. This fostered the “stab in the back” myth in Germany that helped bring Hitler to power. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin agreed that this time the Germans should have no illusions and no excuses.

D-DayWorld War II was the first truly worldwide war. Every continent was touched even if not directly attacked during the conflict, which was not the case during the First World War.

It was also a ‘last of its kind’ war, in several ways. One; WWII was the last war in which America participated that could claim a complete and decisive victory.

Two; WWII was the last declared war America has fought. Three; It was the last war before the creation of the United Nations.

By the way, I don’t believe those three are unconnected, especially considering the current nature of the U.N. Finally, WWII was the first, last, and only war requiring the use of nuclear weapons to secure its end.

World War II began only 21 years after the end of the First World War! It has now been almost 75 years and counting since the end of the Second World War.

While that is a good piece of news, it should not deceive us. Terrible, though smaller, conflicts all over the globe are still happening.

Moreover, for the past two decades, we have been both fighting against and witness to horrific jihadist terror campaigns worldwide. No, WWII did not teach us to never fight in a war again.

Perhaps the greatest legacy of D-Day is what I call the “Overlord” factor. The invasion was the first action to back up the statement that only unconditional surrender was acceptable and only a complete allied victory would rightly end the war.

Any other result cheapened the sacrifice of blood spent on the battlefield. War is too serious and destructive to be conducted hoping the enemy will negotiate.

Which is why war must only be considered after all other alternatives are exhausted, including negotiation. The single acceptable negotiation in a real war is the surrender of the enemy.

D-Day put feet to the axiom of General Douglas MacArthur that in war,

There is no substitute for victory.

Many of us might never see the likes of another worldwide conflict in our lifetimes. However, I feel confident that another “world war” is coming and it will truly be the ‘war to end all wars,’ for it will mark the return of Christ and the ultimate final victory over the enemy of our souls.

The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.” Revelation 11:18 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

The World in the 20th Century, vol. 1, The Rage of Nations, by Edward R. Kantowicz, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer, Simon and Schuster, N.Y., 1960

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Dennis Larsen’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Pere Ubu’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Martin Kramer’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal