The New Communism—Without Religion or God

Bob Avakian in all his talks and writings continues to promote the new communism as the emancipator of humanity. Without religion or God, Avakian attempts to persuade the masses to put their faith in the scientific method and dialectical materialism for their salvation, not in the hereafter but in the here and now.

In his book entitled, Away with All Gods! Avakian argues that God, as revealed in the Bible, doesn’t exist because how can a loving, all powerful god allow tragedies and suffering to afflict mankind? Avakian also states that if such a god existed, “it would be a cruel, vicious, sick, twisted, and truly monstrous god”1 [emphasis added] that no “sane and decent”2 person would want to follow or worship. This is the age-old argument that every atheist and agnostic has used to attack God and the People of the Book.

On the other hand, Christians of all denominations have struggled with the problem of how to reconcile the fact that God seems to allow human suffering while at the same time professing to love His creation. Apologetics, as a branch of theology, has attempted to reconcile these two apparent mutually exclusive aspects of God’s character. However, what most pundits fail to factor into the equation is the holiness of God. It’s not surprising since we, as the Church, have largely fallen away from realizing God’s holiness because we are too caught up by the world system; we are more of the world than we are in the world.

Even so, Avakian is clever enough to use an obscure incident from the Old Testament book of 2 Samuel 24 to convince his readers of how monstrous God really is.3 Avakian was obviously aware that most people, including Christians, wouldn’t be familiar with the particular verses in 2 Samuel which would make it easier for him to catch his readers off guard. The incident that Avakian is pointing out is where David was incited to conduct a census because of God’s anger against Israel in order to force God’s hand. The back reference for 2 Samuel 24 is in Exodus.

The LORD also spoke to Moses, saying,

When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. (Exod. 30:11-12, NASB)

Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD.

The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves. (Exod. 30:14-15)

David was fully aware that if he conducted the census without collecting the required ransom or contribution from the people as God commanded in Exodus, God would be forced to send a plague as a judgement upon Israel.

In 1966, John Lennon made the following remark concerning the Beatles, “We’re more popular than Jesus…” Lennon wasn’t being idealistic when he made that remark, he was basing it more on dialectical materialism. However, in today’s political climate, Hitler has replaced Jesus in popularity. In this respect, Avakian was ahead of the curve because in his book published in 2008, he wasted no time accusing Christian fundamentalists as being Christian fascists and associating them with Hitler.4

It’s interesting that whenever a left-wing extremist accuses someone or something as being fascist, they always bring up Hitler, not Mussolini—the father of fascism. I wonder why that is? Could it be that it would be embarrassing if people knew that Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy, among others were fascist sympathizers,5 and that Columbia University’s Casa Italiana was once controlled by Mussolini supporters?6 Fascism is statism, and communism is emancipation. Fascist economic systems are corporatist, but in communist society, there are no classes in that the proletariat owns everything which really means no one owns anything.

Avakian makes a valid point when he accuses hypocritical fundamentalist Christian fascists of insisting that people obey the Ten Commandments while otherwise ignoring other aspects of the Mosaic Law. Avakian labels this tendency as “Salad Bar”7 Christianity. Rightly so, since not only are the Ten Commandments still in effect, but the entire Law as given in the Old Testament of the Bible is still in effect—forever.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29) [emphasis added]

Jesus Himself affirms the Law, as given in the Old Testament, is still in effect.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matt. 5:17-18)

As a “Salad Bar” Christian myself, I usually pass on the salad and go straight for the strong meat. (Heb. 5:12 GenevaBible)

Avakian deviates from his tactic of misinterpreting obscure Scripture verses such as 2 Samuel to attack God and Christianity directly using Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific method. Avakian repeats all the typical progressive talking points used to defend evolution such as, “evolution has for some time been a settled question.”8 Evolution is a settled question like the Big Bang theory is a settled question. Like it or not, organic evolution like the Big Bang theory are examples of historical science, not operational science.9

In his book, Away with All Gods! Avakian bases a significant portion of his objections to the Bible by presenting the viewpoints of Bart D. Ehrman, Chairman of the Religious Studies Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.10 Avakian is quick to point out Ehrman’s authoritative credentials since Ehrman is himself a former evangelical fundamentalist.11

Ehrman zeroes in on many accusations and criticisms of the Bible but I’ve decided not to address each of those criticisms and accusations individually, but instead, I’ve provided excerpts from Tom V. Taylor’s class handouts from a Bible history course I took at Biblical Theological Seminary in 1991. The following excerpts provide answers, either directly or in some cases indirectly, for many of the questions people have concerning our English Bible.

None of the original manuscripts survive and if they did men would worship them instead of the Lord. We feel the Lord has been pleased to give us very good copies…it is a technical study, but very good copies.

The work of translation is hard work because no two languages have identical vocabularies…and few even have identical alphabets…In addition many languages did not have some of the word ideas that are in the Bible (like redemption) and translators had to assess what speech idiom in a language would make this meaningful to the people of that place.

(Note: we do not change the Bible we change the translation of it…the rendering of it…to meet new concepts and societies.)

That is the beauty of the Bible. God gave us a book of truth that retains its character and meaning for life in spite of the many translations…these helping to make the biblical message relevant and meaningful from age to age.

The Word of God is the inscripturated message, not the individual translation. We may apply the term to any translation in a general sense because it contains the inscripturated message but if someone says well…’Did God actually write these words?’ the answer is ‘No, these are the words into which the God breathed message has been put by men for the people of their language and culture.’ They should be careful, of course, but they were not working under inspiration (technical inspiration of 2 Timothy 3:16) and are simply doing the best they can to serve God and His people.

It is also true that some heretics have translated the Bible and changed its basic thrust at some points to support their teachings. Naturally we are not going to endorse any such works but it is surprising that even in some of these books the inscripturated message of salvation and grace can still be seen.

The bottom line is that only the original manuscripts were “inspired” or God breathed. But what about “inerrancy,” i.e., nothing contrary to fact and “infallibility,” i.e., incapable of teaching error. If there are any errors in a Bible translation, they are due to “translation or an insufficient current body of knowledge,”12 as Taylor’s class handouts have implied. And according to the Ligonier Ministries’ website, “We can have inerrancy without infallibility, but we cannot have infallibility without inerrancy.”13

Practically speaking, whether or not our current Bible translations are infallible or incapable of teaching error, is dependent on whether or not the translators were working from an agenda. That is, if the translators were faithful to the best available manuscripts then the results of their efforts would be infallible but still not technically inerrant, again, as Taylor seems to imply from his class handouts. Nevertheless, “through the process of textual criticism, we can recover the original wording of the manuscripts with a high degree of certainty.”14

Slavery was abolished in the United States on December 18, 1865, but if you listen to Avakian you would think that slavery is still being practiced in America and that God, the Bible, and Christianity are responsible. Contrary to the nonsense that Avakian is peddling, nowhere in the Bible is slavery encouraged or promoted. The Bible references slavery because the practice was widespread during the times in which the books of the Bible were written. As a matter of fact, the Bible gives strict guidance on how masters were to treat their slaves and how slaves where to behave towards their masters. Slaves were not without rights in the Scripture as revealed in the following verses: Exod. 21:2, 21:20, 21:27, 23:12; Deut. 23:15-16; and Prov. 30:10.

In Matt. 8:9, Jesus heals the centurion’s servant or slave.

And then there’s the story of the runaway slave Onesimus who was ministering to Paul in prison and whom Paul sent back to his master with a letter. In the letter, Paul writes:

For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever,

no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. (Philem. 1:15-17 NASB)

Jesus makes frequent use of the master/slave relationship in many of His parables as an analogy for the type of relationship He desires between Himself and His followers. (Matt. 24-25)

Since Avakian has irrefutably discredited God, the Bible, and Christianity, there is no reason to debate unchangeable human nature since it doesn’t exist according to Avakian.15 He further asserts that all the conflicts, tragedies, and injustices that have occurred in human history are all a result of the “system.”16 If you remove the spiritual dimension from human beings, then humans are no more than cogs in the machine. Okay, so were John Mauchly and Presper Eckert, the actual inventors of the world’s first digital electronic computer, cogs in the machine? Or how about William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Houser Brattain, the inventors of the transistor, were they just cogs in a machine? I could go on but you see my point. The capitalist system, which communists hate so much, is responsible for bringing about all the major innovations that the world now takes for granted. Would these innovations been possible under a system that promotes a “do as you’re told” work ethic?

Avakian, along with all other good communists, would like you to believe that God, the Bible, and Christians are all against science. Well, I doubt that Avakian is familiar with Donald E. Knuth, computer scientist, mathematician, and professor emeritus at Stanford University who is most famous for his The Art of Computer Programming multi-volume book series. In addition to his computer science and mathematics writings, Knuth is also a student and teacher of the Scriptures. He has written a book, 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated that is the result of his unique Bible study approach which he describes as “stratified sampling.”17 By using this mathematical principle, Knuth believed that “A large body of information can be comprehended reasonably well by studying more or less random portions of the data.”18

As a result, Knuth ‘randomly’ decided on Chapter 3, verse 16 from each book of the Bible given that John 3:16 is so well known and because he felt it would be easier for his class to remember.19 After allowing for books that don’t have 16 verses in Chapter 3 and for books that don’t even have a Chapter 3, Knuth arrived at 59 instances of the 3:16 rule.20 In addition, Knuth decided to provide his own translation for each of the selected verses even though he isn’t a Greek or Hebrew scholar.21 Considering the translations, commentary, and calligraphy, I think the results were impressive, particularly John 3:16 as follows (minus the calligraphic flourish):

Yes, God loved the world so much that He gave His only child, so that all people with faith in Him can escape destruction and live forever.22

 

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.


  1. Bob Avakian, Away with All Gods!, (Insight Press, Chicago, 2008), 6. 

  2. Ibid., 6. 

  3. Ibid., 4-5. 

  4. Ibid., 16. 

  5. Gerard Sczepura, “American Fascism,” Theological Ruminations (blog), August 21, 2017,  https://gerardsczepura.com/myblog/american-fascism/

  6. Ibid. 

  7. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 32. 

  8. Ibid., 44. 

  9. “’Evolution Is a Fact.’ Argument 1,” Answers In Genesis, October 17, 2017, https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-is-a-fact/

  10. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 61. 

  11. Ibid. 

  12. “Inerrancy vs Infallibility: A Theological Primer,” We Talk of Holy Things, accessed April 02, 2020, http://www.wetalkofholythings.com/2013/03/inerrancy-vs-infallibility-theological.html

  13. “Infallibility and Inerrancy,” Ligonier Ministries, accessed April 02, 2020, https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/infallibility-and-inerrancy/

  14. Ibid. 

  15. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 226. 

  16. Ibid. 

  17. Donald E. Knuth, 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated, (Madison, Wisconsin, A-R Editions, Inc., 1991), 3. 

  18. Ibid. 

  19. Ibid., 5. 

  20. Ibid., 7. 

  21. Ibid., 8. 

  22. Ibid., 171. 

The New Communism—The Architect

You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism…

Nikita Khrushchev

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Karl Marx

In the late Twenties, when I was a sophomore at USC, I was a socialist myself—but not when I left. The average college kid idealistically wishes everybody could have ice cream and cake for every meal. But as he gets older and gives more thought to his and his fellow man’s responsibilities, he finds that it can’t work out that way—that some people just won’t carry their load…

John Wayne

Well, this is my third installment in a series on “The New Communism,” but I haven’t really given a definition of the subject so here is my short answer, it’s just more of the same ol’ same ol’ but my long answer is in the remainder of this installment.

This concept of a new communism is the result of the efforts of Bob Avakian to arrive at a new synthesis of communist theory. The New Communism, also known as Avakian Communism, is a new synthesis grounded in the scientific method of understanding reality known as dialectical materialism.

In communist philosophy, all understanding of the world is based on objective reality or material reality. Therefore, it follows that communists believe “that all of reality, all of existence, is made up of material reality and nothing else.”1 [emphasis added] But Avakian has abridged Marx and Engel’s dialectical materialism by removing any relationship with the spiritual or dependence on faith. In other words, there is no room whatsoever for God or any of the other gods in Avakian’s new communist utopia. Avakian continues arguing for communism as a science based on the understanding that “reality is not static”2 and that “Reality is made up of contradiction.”3

It is not ‘totalitarian’ to say that there is objective reality, that we can engage it and we can transform it. We can learn about it, and, yes, keep on learning, and keep on refining what we’ve learned, and maybe even discard some things. But there is an accumulation of knowledge by proceeding in this kind of way, with this kind of method and approach.4

It’s interesting to point out that the favorite catch phrase climate alarmists use to defend their position against “climate doubters” is that the “science is settled” which, in fact, contradicts the scientific method. Avakian is clever enough to avoid using the term, “climate” outright in his diatribe against capitalism but he nevertheless insinuates capitalism is the cause of climate change when he argues that the current economic system needs to be “transformed”5 so that we don’t “further destroy the potential for human life.“6

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

Progressives, socialists, communists…Avakian believe society can’t advance (progress) under the current economic system. Avakian tries to convince the reader that “socialist society is a dynamic society, in transition, that has to go forward to the complete achievement of communism…”7 Okay, let’s experiment a little and try to apply the scientific method to the discussion of communism as put forward by Avakian in his statement on objective reality above. Given that socialist society is constantly changing and evolving, how does Avakian know that communism would be the ultimate goal? What if the progression towards socialism, then communism, eventually takes you back to capitalism? Hasn’t this outcome already been demonstrated? And, if somehow you do happen to arrive at the “complete achievement of communism,”8 what then?

Okay, so what is the bottom line here with this new synthesis of communism? I believe what Avakian has tried to do in his 424-page book is to say that the scientific method as applied to communism is the realization that reality is comprised of contradiction and motion9 along with the acceptance of the new leadership that has brought this about, i.e., Avakian himself. I believe everyone understands the concept of reality in motion, but what are the contradictions?

Avakian is dogmatic in his insistence that in order for anyone to be a real communist, that person must be a Maoist, “You’re a communist, you’re with Mao. That’s it, baby.”10 Avakian is adamant in his belief that in order for anyone to call themselves a communist they need to follow Mao.11 He defends his position by applying the principles of material reality to Mao’s understanding of communism. That is, Mao believed that since socialist society is a dynamic society, in transition, there will continue to be class struggle, that is, the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoise; and between capitalism and socialism;” and that this “assumed a concentrated expression within the communist party itself…”12 Mao recognized that within the communist party there will be revisionist elements and those desiring to go back down the capitalist road. Mao considered Deng Xiaoping a “capitalist roader.”

In Avakian’s mind, the United States is a capitalist-imperialist society. I use the term “society” because Avakian doesn’t believe in sovereign nations or nation states. Avakian’s Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) is targeting the entire world not just the U.S. for revolution, but the revolution needs to start here, in the U.S.

Was it a coincidence that American essayist, poet, and philosopher Henry David Thoreau published his essay “Civil Disobedience” only one year after Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto in 1848?

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation…A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things…

Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

I’ve read Thoreau in college but I don’t remember being taught or told that Thoreau was a revolutionary, but the above quote has a very Marxian ring to it. Thoreau used the phrase “mass of men” and Marx used the term “people” or “masses.” The notion that the mass of men are leading lives of quiet desperation seems to imply that they are being oppressed, a theme not overlooked by Avakian. For Marx, the oppressors were the bourgeois owners of the means of production and for Thoreau the oppressor was or could be the government.

Things do not change; we change.

Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Thoreau breaks with Marxian philosophy and dialectical materialism which proposes that reality is only material and in a constant state of transition. Thoreau, being a New England Transcendentalist, conformed to an idealistic system of thought that rejects the notion that all existence is made up of only material reality.

Avakian is a revolutionary communist, so what is his strategy for achieving the revolution? Avakian’s strategy for revolution is based on Mao’s strategy for resisting the Japanese during their occupation of China during World War II which is “hastening while awaiting.”13

The hastening involves the preparation of the vanguard for revolution. The vanguard being the ones who will be making the sacrifices, i.e., the ones who will be doing the dying. The vanguard is easy to identify, it consists of the members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter along with radicalized college students and those in the Me Too and feminist movements. Let’s not forget those individuals and companies supporting The Resistance, those within the Never Trump movement, and the evangelists for the revolution in the mainstream media and their enablers in the Democratic Party who are spewing out propaganda 24/7. I’m being overly polite here.

So, what about the awaiting? Avakian says that “You have to have the right conditions, the necessary conditions,”14 in order for the revolution to be successful. But what are these conditions? Well, I have a few theories. First of all, the masses need to be convinced that any form of socialism is preferred over free-market capitalism. The second is through a breakdown in law and order so that society starts to go adrift. And thirdly, last but not least, is the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. Do you really think that the 16 million AR-15s and AKs that could be confiscated in the U.S. would be sent to the crusher? No, I believe that a Federal government firearms confiscation initiative would be nothing more than a redistribution of armaments from those that don’t or won’t support the revolution to those that do.

I have the hardcover version of Bob Avakian’s book, The New Communism, but I also downloaded a PDF version from the REVCOM.US website and I discovered that the word “exploitation” appears 133 times in the text and that the word “oppression” appears 56 times, and “emancipation” appears 51 times. So, what does humanity need to be emancipated from? According to Avakian, it’s capitalism and America’s Christian heritage—a topic which I’ll address in Part 4 of this series.

But what is the nature of all the “horrors”15 and “horrendous outrages”16 that the masses are forced to endure according to Avakian? While he doesn’t really elaborate on those things, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to infer what they might be.

Avakian’s Revolutionary Communist Party seems to believe that all of humanity needs to be emancipated from the following:

  • Capitalism
  • Religions
  • Police/Military
  • Private Property
  • Free Speech
  • Individualism
  • Sovereign States
  • Traditional Family and Social Structures
  • Currency

You get the picture. Of course, none of this is really new, all these things have been under attack by the progressives since the 1960s at least. Back then, the radicals were all for free speech because political correctness and revisionist history weren’t being taught in colleges and universities, but that has been completely reversed on today’s college campuses.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The current COVID-19 pandemic panic is a perfect example. I’ve lived through many flu outbreaks and pandemics in my lifetime: H2N2, Influenza A/B, H3N2, H5N1, and H1N1. During the H2N2 outbreak during the 1968-1969 flu season there were approximately 100,000 deaths in the U.S. I graduated high-school in 1968 and I don’t remember anyone really being concerned at all; life went on as usual. But today, there have been 276 deaths from COVID-19 and the entire country is shut down. What’s different?

Don’t be deceived. The last thing The Resistance wants is for the economy to recover before the 2020 Presidential Election. Let’s hope that Remdesivir, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, and other drugs don’t prove to be effective treatments for COVID-19 so that the panic continues, the country stays in lockdown, and the economy continues to tank. Otherwise…well you know what will happen.

Maybe The New York Times is correct, maybe this really is the “Trumpvirus.”

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.


  1. Bob Avakian, The New Communism, (Insight Press, Chicago, 2016), 40. 

  2. Ibid., 45. 

  3. Ibid. 

  4. Ibid., 95. 

  5. Ibid., 156. 

  6. Ibid., 90. 

  7. Ibid., 86. 

  8. Ibid. 

  9. Ibid., 92. 

  10. Ibid., 87. 

  11. Ibid. 

  12. Ibid., 86. 

  13. Ibid., 193. 

  14. Ibid., 198. 

  15. Ibid., 9. 

  16. Ibid. 

The New Communism—The Influencers

This morning while starting to write this post, I happened to notice the following news headline on my iPhone:

AOC pushes ‘democratic socialist’ foreign policy: More ‘decolonization,’ less ‘exploitation’

AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) goes on to say in the article that the U.S. needs to “ramp up its climate efforts” and leave behind its legacy of imperialism, colonialism, exploitation, & ‘security state.’ She emphatically declares that “TRADE POLICY IS CLIMATE POLICY.”

Unless I’m missing the point here, AOC wants the U.S. to abandon its imperialistic approach to foreign policy and at the same time, dictate how sovereign nations should conform to ‘climate benchmarks’ imposed on them through their trade agreements with the U.S.

Sounds contradictory but this is exactly how the new communists want to expand their revolution globally by using the United States as a role model for the rest of the world. But in order for that to happen in a moral and material way, the “system,” meaning our society, must be totally transformed, not reformed, from a capitalist society into a communist society.

Lately, many of the commentators and contributors on Fox News opinion/news shows on the Web, particularly Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson, have been at a loss to explain why the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates are endorsing such extreme policies. Many have stated that the current Democratic Party is unrecognizable from the party of JFK, Clinton, and even BHO. In reality, the Democratic Party has become the New Socialist Democratic Party. Many blame the influence of AOC and the other members of The Squad but I believe these new mainstream democrats are a product of the ideology espoused by radicals from the 1960s and are being influenced today by the New Communism and its architect, Bob Avakian.

Bob Avakian
Bob Avakian
https://revcom.us

So, who the heck is Bob Avakian? I never heard of him until recently when I stumbled upon the REVCOM.US (REVolutionary COMmunist?) website. What particularly struck me on the site was the introduction to a writing by Avakian, “Hope For Humanity On A Scientific Basis Breaking with Individualism, Parasitism and American Chauvinism.” It was enough to get me interested, so I clicked around and found a video of a dialog between Cornel West and Bob Avakian that took place in 2014 at the Riverside Church in NYC. I was familiar with Cornel West from his somewhat infrequent appearances on both Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity episodes on Fox News. Needless to say, Avakian’s 2-hour screed was laced with total and complete hatred for God, the United States, and Israel.

BREAKING NEWS: Vladimir Putin successful in changing the minds of thousands of voters and caucus goers in the early democratic primaries to vote against Joe Biden in an unprecedented bid to solidify Donald Trump’s re-election chances in 2020.

Does that headline sound outrageous? Not really, since this is the news ticker that CNN and MSDNC are dying to run. Let’s face it, if Putin, did in fact, attempt to influence our elections in Donald Trump’s favor then Russia would be America’s best friend.

Ever wonder where Antifa got its inspiration from? Well, my guess is that it was from Avakian and from the extreme content headlines on the REVCOM.us website. Many headlines on their website declare that America is Fascist and is ruled by a Fascist Regime. In the Avakian article, “Fascists and Communists: Completely Opposed and Worlds Apart,” Avakian provides his version of what fascism means through what he calls the “5 Stops.” I’ll take his “5 Stops” all of which are don’ts and give my interpretation of what Avakian is really saying in the form of do’s:

STOP #1: Release all incarcerated people of color, particularly black and brown people, restrain the police from stopping and interrogating any person of color, and avoid prosecution of same.

STOP #2: Prevent all biological males, particularly Caucasian Christian males, from holding any position of authority.

STOP #3: Downsize the military with the ultimate goal of eliminating the service branches altogether.

STOP #4: Eliminate all immigration enforcement agencies and open the borders to anyone and everyone.

STOP #5: Discontinue all forms of human activity that produces CO2 with the ultimate goal of eliminating human activity altogether.

In order to support my aforementioned conclusions, I’ve gleaned the following notes from viewing the film, REVOLUTION AND RELIGION: The Fight for Emancipation and the Role of Religion; A Dialogue Between CORNEL WEST & BOB AVAKIAN.

  • Morality is a human creation
  • Bible supports slavery
  • God is a bloodthirsty tyrant
  • The “system” i.e., capitalism, is the problem
  • Israel conducts genocide against the Palestinians
  • There is no such thing as immigrants
  • No need for police or the military
  • Reality is evolution, creation is a myth
  • Evolution is science
  • Science can put an end to suffering
  • Police are murderers
  • Majority of the world are suffering
  • Thomas Jefferson was not moral
  • The United States is an empire
  • The CIA is an organization of mass murderers
  • Communism is an international movement
  • America doesn’t come first
  • Capitalism is the cause of climate change
  • People in the streets can bring about change (mob rule?)

The above points are just a sampling of Avakian’s 2-hour rant from the Riverside Church in NYC. Bob Avakian was billed as a Revolutionary Communist and Cornel West as a Revolutionary Christian. After Avakian spoke he introduced Cornel West and both men embraced in a show of solidarity.

Dr. Cornel West
Dr. Cornel West
http://cornelwest.com

During Dr. West’s time at the podium, he recognized Harry Belafonte in the audience who he introduced as a freedom fighter with 60 years of participation in the struggle. Of course, most people would accredit Harry Belafonte as being “One of the most successful Jamaican-American pop stars in history,” being “dubbed the ‘King of Calypso’ for popularizing the Caribbean musical style with an international audience in the 1950s.” I guess he did all right for himself considering all the exploitation and oppression he had to overcome.

Dr. West’s 30-minute discourse was nothing like Avakian’s 2-hour rant, it was very academic and high-minded while staying within the democratic socialist framework of course. Even so, Dr. West regurgitated much of Avakian’s rhetoric on capitalism, the police, internationalism, oppression, exploitation, and so on and so forth. Even though both men agreed on many economic, social, and political issues, they seemed to disagree strongly on religion and theology. Dr. West is a revolutionary Christian and Avakian is an atheist. Dr. West believes Christians can “work together” with the leaders of the New Communism in order to achieve emancipation for the oppressed in America and the rest of the world.

Dr. West appeared as a guest on The Sean Hannity Show February 20th along with Dan Bongino and Geraldo Rivera. Hannity almost immediately fired out the accusation that Bernie Sanders is “pro-soviet” and a “Bolshevik” but Dr. West defended Bernie by saying that he is “like me,” implying Bernie is a democratic socialist not a “Soviet communist.”

Nevertheless, many are accusing Bernie Sanders of being a communist and if Bernie gets the Democratic nomination, he is going to be in the fight of his political life when he is forced to go up against President Trump. And now, as in 2016, the Democratic establishment is working against Bernie’s nomination because you know it’s getting worrisome when James Carville, a prominent Democratic Party consultant, makes comments like, “I’m a political hack! At least I’m not a communist.”

The New Communism—The Ideologues

Welcome to the first installment of a new Crosshairs series on the 2020 United States presidential election. Unlike the 2016 election where there were 17 Republican candidates, this time the Democrats came out of the woodwork seemingly en masse all vying for the nomination—29 in all. But only one candidate has even the remotest chance to beat Donald Trump, and that candidate isn’t even a Democrat.

With the possible exception of Tulsi Gabbard, the rest of the field are unfortunately members of the lunatic fringe. But this installment doesn’t concern the congresswomen from Hawaii, it concerns the other person who also beat HRC in 2016 and that person is Bernie Sanders.

Okay, so you don’t like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, but what other choice do you have? Well, you might like the candidate with the unpronounceable last name who was the former mayor of one of the most dangerous cities to live in who looks and sounds too perfect, kind of like a 3D printed automaton.

In this field of Democrat candidates, 28 ≠ 1. Yes, some have dropped out of the race, but the inequality will still remain true even when 1 ≠ 1.

It’s hard to believe that five years have gone by since I wrote my first Crosshairs post in a series on the 2016 election. We are now less than a year away from the 2020 election and the only somewhat traditional Democrat running is the previous administration’s vice-president who hasn’t even been able to get his former boss’s endorsement.

Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders
mark reinstein/Shutterstock.com

In 2016, Bernie helped Hillary clinch the nomination when he made the stunning yet sympathetic statement, “Americans are sick of hearing about your damn emails!” during one of the debates. Bernie needs to take the old adage, “nice guys finish last” to heart if he wants to go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump.

But this installment isn’t necessarily exclusively about the socialist senator from Vermont, it’s about his ideological underpinnings which I believe are firmly communistic. After all, was it not Vladimir Lenin who said, “The goal of socialism is communism?” But do Bernie Sanders’ supporters really understand the consequences of adopting a socialistic political/economic system in the United States?

Bernie Sanders and most every Democrat, claim to be democratic socialists not socialists. Democratic socialists believe in bringing about change through “fair” elections and not through revolution. That’s why you hear talk about abolishing the Electoral College as a way to achieve “fair” elections along with policies of unrestricted immigration from Mexico and Central America. After all, isn’t it true that under socialism all people are equal? Democracy in a socialist state necessarily leads to the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Okay, just so you know, the Orlando Sentinel is nothing more than a left-wing propaganda rag for the Democratic Party or simply, The Party. Don’t believe it, then check out this biased, hate filled, factually inaccurate, criminally stupid article written by Barbara Fowler asserting that the Russian’s are using President Trump to “destroy America from within.” Yea, but wasn’t Bernie Sanders the one who honeymooned in the former Soviet Union during the 1980s?

The coordination of the media is pervasive, not only nationally but locally as well.

Propaganda won the day for the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution in 1917, and it will win the day again for the Democrats in 2024. As Lenin agitated for revolution among the masses, so it is with certain Hollywood types, academia, and the lamestream (mainstream) media today. Then, the masses were the workers, but today the masses are the sanctioned perpetual victims of systemic racism, white-supremacism, patriarchalism, and Christianism.

Communism…socialism…what’s the difference? I think those socioeconomic systems can be summed up in the following doctrine:

The State gave and the State took away, blessed be the name of the State.

A socialist’s worst nightmare is when a country and its people are prosperous. How can you agitate for revolution when things are going well? The way you agitate for revolution is to create a boogeyman, something to make the gullible and uninformed public seek salvation in the government. And that boogeyman in 2020 is [man-made] climate change. Back in 2007, a politician turned environmental scientist, won the Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the man-made climate change hoax along with the IPCC. Today, we have another potential Nobel Laureate in Greta Thunberg, a teenage Swedish climate activist.

At this point you may be asking yourself, “what does all this climate change stuff have to do with communism?” Well, the answer is it has everything to do with communism, all you need to do to convince yourself is to read H. Res. 109, 2019 which was originally sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Edward Markey. The Green New Deal proposes to achieve “net-zero global emissions by 2050” through a radical transformation of the United States economy. Note that the language states “global emissions” a point that will be revisited in a future post.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
JStone/Shutterstock.com

AOC’s message to the congress and to the voters as laid out in the H. Res. 109 is “It has become necessary to destroy the economy in order to save it.”

Until recently, the American character has been one of self-reliance and individualism but is rapidly becoming one of collectivism and conformity.

If you’re like me and like to watch news and opinion debates particularly on Fox News then you probably noticed how some program guests like to talk-over other guests holding opposing views. Without fail, the guests who like to play this game are always the ones representing radical left-wing positions.

For example, every time Candace Owens, a conservative activist, appears on Laura Ingraham’s show opposite Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney, Terrell does his best to talk-over Candice so as to prevent the audience from hearing any of her arguments. I noticed the same behavior exhibited by Tim Kaine during the 2016 Pence/Kaine Vice-Presidential debate. Intolerance is a trademark of the socialist Left.

So, what does Bernie Sanders, and most every other Democrat in the presidential race, really believe? I’ve taken just a few examples of where Bernie stands on select issues directly from his campaign’s website.

Live up to our ideals as a nation and welcome refugees and those seeking asylum, including those displaced by climate change.

Create a Medicare for All, single-payer, national health insurance program to provide everyone in America with comprehensive health care coverage, free at the point of service.

Transform our energy system to 100 percent renewable energy and create 20 million jobs needed to solve the climate crisis.

Ensure justice for frontline communities, especially under-resourced groups, communities of color, Native Americans, people with disabilities, children and the elderly.

Double union membership within Bernie’s first term.

Will raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade and cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

Create a nation in which all people are treated equally.

Honor Native American tribal treaty rights and sovereignty, moving away from a relationship of paternalism and control toward one of deference and support.

Enact a federal jobs guarantee, to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a stable job that pays a living wage.

As can be seen from just the above list, Bernie makes liberal use of the climate change boogeyman to justify unrestricted immigration. Notice he doesn’t explicitly say “unrestricted” immigration but how else would you describe a system that proposes “breaking up ICE and CBP” federal law enforcement agencies?

Bernie hits a double when he calls out Native Americans (a class of sanctioned perpetual victims) and “paternalism” in the same sentence.
Progressives like to accuse conservatives of inserting “dog whistles” in their communications but the socialists also have their own trigger words which Bernie uses frequently such as “union,” “class,” “justice,” and “equality” or “equally.”

Too bad the Constitution prohibits anyone under the age of 35 from becoming president otherwise AOC would be leading the Democratic ticket. Likewise, the Electoral College prevents elections from being decided by the vote of only two or three states. The Constitution…a major stumbling block for the progressives.

In this initial entry in my series on the 2020 election, I’ve chosen to present “truth over facts” because it is much better to be “morally right” than to be “precisely, factually, and semantically correct.” Agreed? Besides, anyone who can make statements like that with a straight face deserves to be President.

 

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.

In the Crosshairs: Guns & Immigration

Guns

There’s a prophecy in the Bible concerning a time when there will finally be a lasting peace between nations and men which up to this point the world has been unable to achieve. The prophecy I’m referring to is in Micah 4:3 which says:

And He will judge between many peoples And render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war.

Who is the “He” that is being referred to in the verse I just quoted? Unfortunately, according the prevailing belief amongst the populations of the world, including the United States, it’s some charismatic politician who claims to know what’s best for us. Much to their dismay, this prophecy is not about any of them, it is about Jesus, the coming Messiah.

Over two hundred years ago a group of men wrote a document that laid the foundation for a great republic which said that the rights and liberties granted to men (and women) were bestowed by God not government. This group of men were the authors of the United States Constitution which was, and still is, the greatest document given to the world, second only to the Scriptures.

Amendment II of the Unites States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, if you listen to certain politicians like Hillary Rodham Clinton for example, you would think that it is the NRA (National Rifle Association) not the Constitution that guarantees our right to keep and bear arms in the United States. The NRA may be an advocate of gun rights but it isn’t the guarantor of gun rights.

Nevertheless, the Scriptures predicted many false prophets would arise and would deceive many. One of those false prophets was Karl Marx who proposed a different gospel. Marx’s gospel preached the concepts of socialism and materialism. What Marx and his followers believed in was the class struggle between the industrial working class (proletariat) and the wealthy middle class (bourgeoisie).

Marx’s ideology came to be known as communism. The same communism embraced by [the former] Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam. While the United States is not listed among those communist countries, it is however, leaning towards socialism, maybe not the radical Marxian variety but a type of socialism nevertheless.

How did this leaning towards socialism come about? Well, it came about as a result of our Western democracy committing fornication with Marxian socialism which produced the bastard child called the ‘New Liberalism.’

So, what does this new liberalism, with its roots in Marxism, have to do with guns? The answer is everything! You need to understand that the goal of the Marxists is the overthrow of all capitalist societies—through revolution if necessary—so that they can bring about their dreams of a socialist utopia. Assuming this is true, then what is the last thing they (communists) want the bourgeoisie to have? Well, you guessed it, they don’t want you to have guns.

Not willing to let any good crisis go to waste, the radicals in the left-wing press were quick to invent new arguments to justify the government taking action, once and for all, to end the private ownership of firearms, i.e., to end the “pervasiveness of gun violence in the United States.” After all, “More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history,” according to a recent article by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.

Of the 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, 63% were suicides. I guess you could argue that if guns had been confiscated in 1968 then all those gun-related deaths from suicides could have been prevented. Sounds good, but maybe those in the 63% would have found other ways to take their own lives, possibly by falling on their own swords.

Occasionally I’ll take a ride over to the Webster Flea Market in Sumter County, Florida to pick up some fresh local produce. I also like to wander around to check out all the odd and bizarre stuff they have for sale. It’s not unusual to find swords and knives; guns; and guitars out in the open for sale. As far as I can remember, I never saw a sword or knife leap off the table and stab anyone. Likewise, I never saw a gun load itself and shoot anyone; and I certainly never saw a guitar get up and play “Purple Haze” on its own. All these items are inanimate objects; they only become good or evil depending on how people decide to use them.

Since elements of the lunatic left-wing can’t get their gun confiscation laws passed, they’ve decided to turn their attention to the gun manufacturers. If they can somehow manage to hold the gun manufacturers liable for the deaths resulting from misuse of their products then they can put them out of business. Problem solved. Better yet, instead of going after Smith & Wesson why don’t they go after the Chinese who invented gunpowder and caused the problem in the first place?

It’s interesting that the New York Times columnist chose to compare gun-related deaths to war deaths but ignored some other interesting statistics such as comparisons to the number of auto related deaths or the number of abortions since 1968.

Let’s take a look at some statistics for comparison. Remember, according to the New York Times columnist, there were 120,130 or 9% more gun related deaths than war related deaths since the Revolutionary War (1,516,863 and 1,396,733 respectively).

Auto deaths since 1968:

Average of 45,000/year (roughly) over 48 years equals 2,160,000

Abortions since 1968:

Average of 1.2 million/year (roughly) over 48 years equals 57,600,000

So, now let’s compare the number of gun related deaths to auto related deaths and abortions since 1968:

643,137 or 42% more auto related deaths than gun related deaths

56,083,137 or 3,697% more abortions than gun related deaths

Based on the statistics I’ve just provided, maybe we need more automobile control not gun control. Is the hysteria over gun related deaths justified? For some reason, auto deaths are taken as matter of fact. I’m sure more people would be shocked if they could see just how gruesome auto accident deaths can be. Are auto related deaths less senseless than gun related deaths?

Of course no dyed-in-the-wool, politically correct, liberal, feminist would be incensed over all the abortion deaths that have occurred since 1968—the unborn fetuses, not the mothers. We’ve all seen videos of just how callous and insensitive the physicians and commandants in the abortion camps really are. No problem though, unborn fetuses are just so much tissue.

As we’ve seen, there are way more auto related deaths and abortions than there are gun related deaths or even war related deaths. Still, the Left’s righteous indignation is always directed towards guns and war.

Immigration

President Obama is quick to point out that the United States is not a Christian nation but a nation of laws. Apparently he forgot about our immigration laws, since 2.5 million illegal immigrants have come to the United States on his watch.

Naturally, to be against illegal immigration is to be against all immigration, Not only that, if you speak out against illegal immigration you are labeled a racist and a xenophobe. Furthermore, if you dare to be against settling Syrian refugees in Europe or the United States you are labeled an Islamophobe. Don’t believe it, just ask Donald Trump. By the way, how do they know that Syrian refugees are Muslim? I thought we don’t profile or give religious tests to potential immigrants.

The mainstream press, political pundits, and politicians like to mock the notion of building a wall along the southern border with Mexico. It’s even more ludicrous for them to believe that Mexico will pay for (and probably even build) the wall. The notion of building a wall with Mexico to secure our southern border is frequently likened to the East Germans building the Berlin Wall in 1961. Is this a legitimate comparison? After all, we are building a wall between two different countries, we’re not trying to build a wall through the middle of Washington, D.C.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Do we have borders or don’t we? Does it make any difference if there are 11 million or 34 million illegals in the United States? Let’s assume that 1% of those 11 million could be criminal or terrorists; that would leave us with a small army of 110,000 able to carry out acts like the Kathryn Steinle murder or the Boston Marathon bombing. How many more will be added if President Obama gets his way and lets in another 85,000 from Syria next year?

The loud voices want us to believe that it’s impossible to just round up all 11 million or so illegal immigrants and deport them. That would be un-American and inhumane, after all “that’s not who we are.” I wonder if there would be any problem if the government decided to round up all the Christians in the United States. I bet you wouldn’t hear a peep.

Besides, would it have made any sense for the government to have allowed Japanese, German, or Italian nationals to immigrate to the United States during World War II? Of course not! You would need to have your head examined if you thought so.

But now, President Obama is okay with allowing thousands of immigrants from countries with active Jihadist movements into the United States. During many of his public lectures, Obama never fails to remind us that “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” Well, technically Obama is correct, we are not at war with Islam the religion but we are at war with Islam the political system whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. I’m sure that the average man on the street in America has no idea what the differences between these two concepts are but they had better learn…and soon.

What we need now is a new sheriff in town. As a matter of fact, I think there’s one on the horizon.

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.

The End Times: Apostasy, Antichrist, and Politics

Apostasy

In a previous post I identified three things concerning Jesus’ return that are indisputable: visible and unmistakable; unexpected; and normalcy, as in the days of Noah and Lot.1 And now we have a fourth thing, apostasy in the Church.

In a letter the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, he reminded them that they shouldn’t be deceived into believing that the day of the Lord had come unless the apostasy has come first. (2 Thess. 2:3 NASB) So what is apostasy and how are we to identify it? Well, according to the online dictionaries: merriam-webster.com and dictionary.com, apostasy is defined as abandonment and departure respectively. To abandon something is to let go of it and you can’t let go of something unless you first had possession of it. Unbelievers, people who were never saved, cannot be apostate since they can’t let go of something they never had; only saved people can become apostate.

A common misconception is that apostates are Christians who have lost their salvation. However, I don’t subscribe to that theory; I believe apostates are Christians who have left their first love, (Rev. 2:3) that is, they have abandoned or compromised many or most of the fundamental doctrines of the faith. They hold on to the “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so…”2 refrain from the well-known children’s song, but they put aside other biblical doctrines or strong teachings that conflict with the popular culture that we find ourselves in the 21st century. Everyone is familiar with the current social issues that are in conflict with biblical teaching: women in ministry; divorce; same-sex marriage; and abortion but not everyone would consider belief in evolution; man-made climate change; and economic inequality as qualifications for apostasy, but they are. And yes, a person’s political and religious beliefs are both interrelated and inseparable.

Antichrist

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. (1 John 2:18)

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. (1 John 4:2-3)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Antichrist is anyone who doesn’t believe that Jesus is the Christ. Contrary to Hollywood’s misappropriation of the term, antichrist is not a specific person.3 The character Damien in The Omen is portrayed as the antichrist, but in reality, he is really the beast who the Bible introduces in Revelation chapter 13. Antichrist and beast are sometimes used interchangeably; I guess because “antichrist” has more of a ring to it than “beast.”

Christians can be apostate but they cannot be antichrist. But according to Jesus, it’s possible for false Christians (antichrists) to become assimilated in the Church such that they become almost indistinguishable from the true believers; nevertheless, God is able to differentiate the wheat from the tares. (Matt. 13:29-30)

Politics

The theology of liberation or liberation theology is one such example of blending politics and religion. In liberation theology, Scripture is reinterpreted with a bias towards the poor. This brand of theology advocates its followers to engage in the struggle to liberate the poor from their male-dominated, rich, white capitalist oppressors.4 You know the old saying, “If it looks like Marxism and smells like Marxism, it’s Marxism.” So, the question becomes, can a person still be a believing Christian while embracing socialism and Marxism? Well, according to William Montgomery Brown, the answer would unequivocally be “No!”

The Rt. Rev. William Montgomery Brown, D.D. was a bishop in the Episcopal Church who published a very interesting and enlightening booklet in 1920 called Communism and Christianism Analyzed and Contrasted from the Marxian and Darwinian Points of View. In his booklet Rev. Brown describes the relationship between supernatural Christianity and science (Darwinism); Christianity and socialism; and Christianity and communism (Marxism). I present here some excerpts from Rev. Brown’s booklet. I have numbered them for later reference:

[1] No man can be consistently both a Socialist and a Christian.5

[2] It is, therefore, a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion.6

[3] The Creation idea is unsupported by evidence, and is in conflict with every scientific law.7

[4] Religion, which is the ideal half, and politics, which is the practical half, of the same reality, human socialism, are like all else in the universe, constantly changing, and necessarily so, because life and progress are dependent upon change.8

[5] Yes, strange, even blasphemous, as the representation may seem, it is nevertheless true, the machine is the only name given under heaven whereby the world can be saved.9

[6] Darwinism and Marxism constitute one gospel, the only true, comprehensive and sufficient gospel which the world has ever had or can have, and there is no hope for the future of mankind except in it.10

[7] Christianity has held the world back from civilization instead of advancing it towards civilization.11

While Rev. Brown was never a real Christian, he definitely was a bonafide, dyed-in-the-wool communist. Note how in excerpt [5] and [6] he professes to worship the creation (the machine) instead of the creator (God) whereby the machine becomes the savior of the world not Jesus. In fact, Rev. Brown never actually believed that Jesus was a real person let alone the son of God. He vigorously denounced the supernatural or spiritual aspect of Christianity. (It’s Interesting to note that Rev. William Montgomery Brown remained a professing Christian even after he was convicted of heresy in 1925—the only person to be convicted since the Middle Ages.)12

In excerpt [4] he declares that religion and politics are really two sides of the same coin. That is to say religion being the theoretical side and politics being the practical side. In his mind, he attributes capitalism (the scourge of the working class) as being created and sustained by Christianity. Capitalism being the devil and Darwinism/Socialism/Marxism being the triune god that saves the world.

In excerpt [1] and [2] the battle lines are drawn; Christianity is declared the enemy of socialism. After reading Rev. Brown’s booklet, it should come as no surprise to the reader why the political Left is so hostile to Christianity. The Left believes that Christianity is hindering their entire agenda, namely wealth redistribution, income equality, social justice, and whatever else that goes along with it.

Since all public school curriculum has been coordinated along left-wing ideology, there’s no tolerance for creationism or intelligent design as inferred from excerpt [3].

Has Christianity really held the world back from civilization as stated in excerpt [7]? Certainly Rev. Brown thinks so, but so does President Obama based on his “pattern” of anti-Christian remarks such as his infamous comment made during an Easter breakfast held at the White House:

On Easter I do reflect on the fact that, as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.13

Or how about this comment:

In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.14

And this one:

Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. And in our home country, slavery, and Jim Crow, all too often was justified in the name of Christ.15

So, based on his own words, Obama really is acknowledging that ISIS is carrying out terrible deeds in the name of religion; otherwise, why would he draw a comparison with the Crusades and the Inquisition which everyone identifies with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, like Obama said, the ISIS threat is not unique; history records wars against militant Islam for almost four hundred years during the 7th, 8th, 15th, and 16th centuries.16 Even though the “Mohammedan Arabs with fire and scimitar had crushed and subjugated the entire Persian Empire and over half of Christendom,”17 it was the Crusaders who were the oppressors.

Nevertheless, the one thing President Obama can’t do is label ISIS for what it really is, an organization that wants to convert the world to its brand of Islam through terror and intimidation.

So then according to the Left’s rewriting of history, it really was the Christians who held back civilization. And “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.”

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.


  1. Gerard Sczepura, “The End Times: Arguments Against a Pre-Trib Rapture,” Theological Ruminations (blog), May 4, 2015, http://gerardsczepura.com/?p=627

  2. Anna B. Warner, Jesus Loves Me, 1860, http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Jesus_Loves_Me/

  3. Gerard Sczepura, “The End Times: Hollywood’s Take,” Theological Ruminations (blog), March 7, 2015, http://gerardsczepura.com/?p=599

  4. “Christian Revolution in Latin America: The Changing Face of Liberation Theology,” Ron Rhodes, accessed June 21, 2015, http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Liberation.html

  5. Brown 1855-1937, William Montgomery (2010-02-16). Communism and Christianism Analyzed and Contrasted from the Marxian and Darwinian Points of View (p. 10). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition. 

  6. Ibid., 12. 

  7. Ibid., 17. 

  8. Ibid., 44-45. 

  9. Ibid., 53. 

  10. Ibid., 54. 

  11. Ibid., 60-61. 

  12. “Bishop Brown,” Galion Historical Society, accessed June 22, 2015, http://www.galionhistory.com/about-bishop-brown/

  13. “Obama’s anti-Christian ‘pattern’ disconcerting to some,” Chris Woodward, OneNewsNow.com, April 8, 2015, http://onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2015/04/08/obamas-anti-christian-pattern-disconcerting-to-some

  14. “What Obama just said about Muslims and their influence on America is beyond disturbing,” Joshua Riddle, Young Conservatives, July 28, 2014, http://www.youngcons.com/what-obama-just-said-about-muslims-and-america-is-beyond-disturbing/

  15. “People are freaking out after Obama compared ISIS to the Crusades,” Colin Campbell, Business Insider, February 6, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-freaking-out-after-obama-compared-isis-to-the-crusades-2015-2#ixzz3divxEH1V

  16. “On the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades,” Dr. Miguel Faria, Hacienda Publishing, September 12, 2011, http://www.haciendapub.com/randomnotes/spanish-inquisition-and-crusades

  17. Ibid.