Freedom or Tyranny: A Time for Choosing – WNB Special Edition


Today: a special edition of World News Brief by CGM Radio – Freedom or Tyranny: A Time for Choosing. With the election exactly one week away, Americans are faced with a dire choice about the direction their country will go – a direction of personal liberty within the safeguards of the rule of law, or a tyrannical Socialist dystopian future.

On today’s show, exactly 56 years to the day after Reagan’s breakthrough “A Time for Choosing” speech, host Winston R. Holland invites the listener to consider the freedoms that are under threat should those who are considered on the “left” gain power, and the importance of four more years of the Trump Administration.

Welcome to this historic Tuesday, October 27, 2020 special edition of World News Brief.

You can watch the unedited YouTube video HERE

Click to subscribe to World News Brief on your podcasting app:


Apple  |  Google  | Spotify |  TuneIn  | Pandora | Blubrry | Deezer | Stitcher | RSS

“Alexa, play the World News Brief Podcast”

Click to Subscribe by Email to get ALL WNB episodes delivered directly to your inbox!

For all articles referenced on today’s broadcast visit the CGM Radio News home page.

Stay in touch with Us

World News Brief on Twitter
World News Brief on Parler
Email World News Brief
CGM Radio on Facebook

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THIS SHOW BELOW:

Freedom or Tyranny: A Time for Choosing

Today: a special edition of World News Brief by CGM Radio – Freedom or Tyranny: A Time for Choosing. With the election exactly one week away, Americans are faced with a dire choice about the direction their country will go – a direction of personal liberty within the safeguards of the rule of law, or a tyrannical Socialist dystopian future. For video, audio, and the transcript of this special as well as all articles, video, and research used in its creation visit cgmradio.com/world.

Join me for this special “A Time for Choosing” edition of World News Brief.

It’s October 27, 1964, 56 years ago today. A man whose face mesmerized the American people on the big screen in the 1930s and 1940s and graced their television sets in the 50’s and 60’s, yet who is a newcomer to the political arena, once again fills their television sets with a warning against an imminent threat against the United States of America: it is “A Time for choosing.”

The presidential election only seven days away, this man saw clearly the choice before Americans in the Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater election. Rather than paraphrase, I’ll allow one of the most transformative men in American history to speak for himself, though now from the grave:

Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”

Today we are told a similar thing: we must choose between a right or left, we must choose between a Republican or Democrat, and those who can’t stomach either can vote for a 3rd party they apparently can get 2000% behind. But I would suggest to you, as the man who would be elected president some sixteen years after those words just reminded us, that there is no right or left, as such metaphors imply that either way you go there is some sort of stable road rather than a deep fall off a cliff.

No, there is no right or left, there is only an up or a down; up to the highway of freedom and personal liberty within a system of the rule of law, or downward off a cliff into a tyrannical police state with the loss of our freedoms enshrined for us by James Madison in the Constitution of the United States.

But wait, when you talk about these freedoms, what are they? Surely I’m not free to gun down my neighbor or break into his home and steal his stuff.

No, my friends, such examples are not descriptive of true freedom, but rather anarchy – lawlessness – and no people are ever free within a system of lawlessness. Rather, the freedoms written for us in the Constitution of the United States, specifically within the Bill of Rights, also known as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, clearly spell out the freedoms guaranteed to us as American citizens no matter your color, creed, or gender.

In 2018 the Freedom Forum Institute conducted a survey of 1009 people and found some pretty shocking results of American’s knowledge of the First Amendment. Even though 77% of those surveyed believe that the rights enshrined in that Amendment are to be protected, knowledge of what those rights are were an entirely lopsided outcome:

More than one-third of the survey respondents (40%) could not name a single freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, and another third of the respondents (36%) were only able to name one. Only one respondent out of the 1,009 people surveyed was able to correctly name all five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Perhaps that’s why much of the country seems unconcerned when politicians actively work, always through the pretense of some higher good they are supposedly serving, to restrict those rights for whatever reason they deem necessary. If you don’t know what all five are I highly encourage you to look them up. For the purposes of this talk today I’ll be primarily talking about two: freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

I’m going to start with an example, not from recent, but from several years ago to show that this desire to restrict our freedoms by wannabe tyrants is not a recent phenomenon.

In 2011 the Fromm family from San Juan Capistrano, California was fined for holding a Bible study in their home. A Bible study – supposedly because some ordinance was broken as a result. There’s only one ordinance I’m concerned about – and it’s the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Interestingly, no citations for large Sunday night football gatherings or Thursday evening book clubs have been forthcoming.

Oh, but it’s just one city in one county in one state in the Union. It won’t affect us, surely it won’t reach my neighborhood.

Let me allow those who faced the anti-Christian bigotry from the Fromm family speak for themselves. A statement from the Fromm family attorney said this:

If this Bible study is not allowed—if they’re not allowed to exercise their rights under the First Amendment—then the floodgates will be open wide for every Bible study in the country to potentially be on the chopping block by their local government.

Have truer words ever been spoken? Remember, the First Amendment is not a local ordinance, it is NATIONAL LAW enshrined in the very document our nation was founded upon. No state, county, city, HOA, or any other civil entity is allowed to restrict it.

It’s a year later, 2012, and Jack Phillips, now the infamous owner of the Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado, is targeted by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for following his religious convictions and not writing a pro gay message on the cake a gay couple was wanting to purchase. This singular event tied him up in court for six years, yes, SIX YEARS… six years of this man’s life, bringing the ultimate decision all the way up to the Supreme Court in which they partially ruled in his favor, but ultimately not settling the matter on whether or not business owners have the right to follow their religious convictions and not write messages that violate their conscience. Let’s pray that changes, and the hate groups that attacked this man will halt their inquisitions of others.

It makes you wonder, would the Colorado Civil Rights commission force a Jewish baker to bake and sell a holocaust celebration cake? Would the Colorado Civil Rights Commission force a Muslim to bake and sell a cake that made a derogatory statement about the founder of Islam? Or do only Christians not have the right to refuse, in their privately owned place of business, to perform services that violate their religious beliefs? Now, suddenly, a Bible believing Christian in good conscience cannot own a particular kind of business while being consistent with their beliefs.

Now let’s fast forward a bit. It’s June 26, 2015, and the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision has just been ruled by the Supreme Court. Same-sex marriage was just made the law of the land by a branch of government that does not create law. Now, even states that did not recognize same-sex marriage were forced to, and Justices of the Peace, such as McClennan County Justice of the Peace Diane Hensley, who do not believe in same-sex marriage, are suddenly, immediately, in a singular moment of time, forced to perform those ceremonies even if they violate their religious beliefs, or simply do no marriages at all. Just like that, there is a function of government a Bible-believing Christian cannot perform in good conscience. The Founders rolled over in their graves, and the radical LGBT had legal standing to persecute any and all who would not bow to its agenda.

It’s now June 2017, two years since the most famous Socialist in America (now a millionaire with three houses to boot) took the Democrat party and young people by storm with his message of a promise of a Socialist utopia here in the good ol’ USA in the likeness of mostly white Scandinavian countries (although they themselves are not actually even Socialist).

An atheist with an affinity for the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Communist revolutionary Sandinistas in Nicaragua, but who we should believe wants to make us like Scandinavia, Sanders is privileged with sitting as a ranking member on the Senate Committee on the Budget, and was interviewing Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee for Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Apparently atheist communists are not fans of evangelical Christians, especially when they write things negative about Islam. This exchange ensues, and I’ll allow you to judge for yourselves. I play it here in its entirety because the First Amendment along with Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution is under severe attack from one of the most prolific US Senators in the country:

Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . .

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College:

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . .

Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . .

Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.

To call this a turning point in American history would simply not do it justice. That last line is particularly telling… “…this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.” Who’s that? Evangelical Christians? Christians who believe in the historic, orthodox teaching that Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation? (John 14:6, Acts. 4:12). In this exchange, Sanders is essentially stating that no one who holds Orthodox Christian beliefs should be able to hold public office. And I’m not overstating his words – you heard the exchange yourself (44 minute mark). In the video he erupts maddenly at Vought for saying he was a Christian (I guess he does not like hearing that more than once). And to think, if the DNC hadn’t stabbed him in the back by literally flipping the election for Hillary (too bad for him there was no coin shortage in 2016) this man could have been President of the United States!

Keep in mind, Trump did not nominate Mr. Vought as US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. This was a finance position! This was for the office of management and budget! But even if it was an ambassadorial position he was nominated to, there’s an inconvenient truth in the US Constitution that Sanders swore, ironically, on a Bible to uphold:

“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3

It’s not only diabolically evil, it’s explicitly unconstitutional. Sanders loses on two points. And is it not rich that Vought is being called out for his faith from a man who muses about the most grotesque, diabolical, violent, anti-woman imaginations? Oh but wait, there’s more!

Senator Chris Hollens from Maryland jumped in on the action, berating Mr. Vought for his Christian beliefs, though he himself claims to be one! As The Federalist documents:

“…Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who defended Sanders, saying, “I don’t think anybody was questioning anybody’s faith here.” Van Hollen then questioned Vought’s faith and claimed his theology is all wrong: “I’m a Christian, but part of being a Christian, in my view, is recognizing that there are lots of ways that people can pursue their God.”

You see, it’s all about the kind of Christian you are as to whether or not you’re fit for office. You know, the one that doesn’t actually believe what the Bible says. It’s “my view,” that is, the view of Emperor Chris Hollens, about what a Christian believes that ultimately matters as to whether or not a candidate is fit for public office.

Since time does not allow I will not go into details about the bigotry of Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin toward newly minted Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s faith back in 2017 when Trump nominated her for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Feinstein famously told her that “the doma lives loudly within you,” regarding her catholic faith, and Dick Durbin questioning about what Orthodox Catholicism is or is not, as if the type of Catholicism she follows should mean a hill of beans, not to mention a clear violation of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Interestingly, they laid off now Justice Amy Coney Barrett during her nomination hearings, likely due to the backlash and charges of religious bigotry and they figured it wasn’t worth it as Dick Durbin recently stated, “‘We Can’t Stop the Outcome.”

Or what about Senator….. Kamala Harris?

But before we go there, I think it’s important to take a look at history and find out how far we’ve come from this idea of religious freedom. On September 12, 1960 President John F. Kennedy, speaking to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association during his White House run, made a series of statements about religious freedom we can’t even fathom coming out of the mouths of even a Democrat State Rep., much less a candidate for president of the United States. Here’s what he said:

“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish;…and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew—or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist….Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you. Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a ‘divided loyalty,’ that we did ‘not believe in liberty,’ and in fact, this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths…; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.”

Wow, how a party can change! And speaking of Catholics, and speaking of Senator Kamala Harris…

You might be surprised she is not a fan of the Catholic men’s fraternity the Knights of Columbus. In full disclosure, my father was a member of the Knights of Columbus, but I am not a member nor am I even Catholic, so I have no particular membership or affinity to the group. But they are a religious organization that, per the clear text of the First Amendment, have the freedom to exercise their beliefs.

As PJ Media chronicled:

In May 2018, Kamala Harris began the trend of attacking Trump judicial nominees over their membership in the Knights of Columbus (KOC). She asked Judge Peter Phipps how he would approach abortion due to his membership in “a group that avowedly opposes abortion.” Harris asked if he had to “swear an oath in order to join” KOC, and whether “litigants in your court can expect a fair hearing … when [KOC’s] organizational values conflict with litigants’ constitutional rights.”

This was the very thing JFK was charged with during his run for president, and not to mention an all too familiar anti-semitic trope – dual loyalty. “How can you be part of this religious group AND be objective when it comes to policy?” is essentially what the Senator is asking.

Why, Senator, would you ask that? Because this group has… beliefs? Because this group has…. practices? Because this group gathers together and believes and does things that you disagree with, and therefore cannot understand and make rulings as a judge based on the law?

Again, PJ media notes:

In October 2018, Harris joined her fellow senators in pressuring Allison Rushing over her relationship with ADF, and asked Rushing whether she believes “that LGBT rights cannot be reconciled with religion.”

You see, Senator Harris, per the US Constitution, which you swore on a Bible to uphold, you’re supposed to ask what they think about LGBT rights, not bring up their religion in the process. There’s nothing wrong with asking the question, but religious tests are forbidden, and it seems she just can’t help herself.

Lastly, they note:

In November and December 2018, Harris joined [Senator] Hirono’s inquisition into Paul Matey and Brian Buescher regarding the Knights of Columbus. “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” Harris asked Buescher. She further pressed him on same-sex marriage, since KOC spent $1 million supporting California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Buescher pledged to uphold the law, regardless of his personal positions.

The Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight (cool title!) Carl Anderson wrote in response:

“There have been times in our country’s past when uninformed or prejudiced people questioned whether Catholics could be good citizens or honest public servants,” and many thought them “unfit for public office,” KOC Supreme Knight Carl Anderson wrote in a letter on Tuesday. “Sadly, it seems that in some quarters, this prejudice remains.”

Anderson is absolutely correct: there have been times in the past where Catholics were questioned about their loyalty due to their religious affiliation, specifically and ironically with the first Roman Catholic president of the United States, who happened to be a Democrat!

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no left or right. There is only an “up to to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism…”

Just look at how vastly the Democrat party has changed from the time of JFK, and certainly, you can look to the vast changes to the Republican party since the time of Goldwater, Reagan, or George W. Bush.

They are labels; they are titles; they are words; and as we’ve seen even from changes to the dictionary in the past decade, the meaning of words can change with time and culture.

So may I humbly make a suggestion – when it comes to voting, when it comes to this time of choosing, throw those labels out. No labels, only realities – the red pill of freedom or the blue pill of totalitarianism. Freedom or tyranny. It’s just that simple.

Even those who fight for our freedoms apparently do not get to enjoy the very freedoms they fight for. Take for example Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling of the US Marine Corps, who, while rather benignly displaying three Bible verses at her cubicle, was…

…convicted at a court-martial after she refused to take down Bible verses she had posted in her workspace and for reposting the verses after her supervisor threw them in the trash.

After several losing appeals, her case was ultimately appealed to the US Supreme Court, and on June 5, 2017, the court declined to take the case, allowing the lower court ruling to stand…

Or take the case of the Little Sisters of the poor, where the Obama Administration attempted to force an organized group of Catholic Nuns, yes, NUNS, to provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans. In 2017 The Trump administration repealed that requirement from the ACA, which resulted in them being sued. However, the Supreme Court ruled by an overwhelming 7-2 majority that the Trump Administration was within its right to remove such a requirement.

Duh.

Is it really that difficult? Why were there two Supreme Court Justices, namely Sonia Sotomayor and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who somehow imagined that a group of nuns that have dedicated their life to caring for the elderly should be forced to provide contraceptive coverage regardless of their beliefs about it? Would those Justices appreciate the same thing happening to them in a similar context?

Need I mention the challenge the Obama Administration made against Hobby Lobby who, even though allowing several types of contraceptive coverage in their insurance, would not allow four specific contraceptive drugs because they were known abortifacients? If a company, which is made up of people, cannot follow their conscience when it comes to abortion, which they believe is the literal snuffing out of a human life, then could it be said that we have freedom of religion at all? Again, thankfully for them and those who value religious freedom, on June 3, 2014 by a razor thin 5-4 decision the court ruled in Hobby Lobby’s favor.

A more recent example and quite pertinent to the campaign at hand would be a comment made by a Joe Biden staffer that strongly suggested that Orthodox Catholics, Jews, and even Muslims should not be on the Supreme Court! As The Stream reports:

Biden campaign Deputy Data Director Nikitha Rai criticized Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s religious views in a Twitter conversation Monday night with Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Shadi Hamid.

“Wait, why is this news? Isn’t this the standard position for any orthodox Catholic?” Hamid asked about a tweet saying that Barrett was a trustee at a Catholic school that opposed same-sex marriage and said homosexual acts are “at odds with Scripture.”

“Unfortunately yes,” Rai responded.

Hamid noted that Orthodox Muslims and Jews also share this belief, to which Rai replied, “True. I’d heavily prefer views like that not be elevated to SCOTUS, but unfortunately our current culture is relatively intolerant. It will be awhile before those types of beliefs are so taboo that they’re disqualifiers.”

Notably, after this conversation went viral, Rai locked her account.

I have refrained in my research for this article to find examples of random fringe supporters from saying crazy things, such as a person I heard on the radio that was being interviewed at an LGBT event saying those who believe it’s a sin to engage in homosexual behavior should be locked up.

But this is not a random individual. This is a senior Joe Biden campaign staffer, who essentially, because of religious belief, would disqualify an enormous swath of the American public from being able to preside as a Justice, in clear violation of the Constitution.

This, combined with attacks on nominees because of membership in Catholic fraternal associations, represents a uniquely clear window into the ideology of today’s left – this is not your grandpa’s, or your dad’s, or even your big brother’s Democratic party.

And who can forget the examples from this very year that I’ve dubbed Covid-1984 where, in the name of keeping us safe, governors and judges have put pastors in jail, forbidden churches to meet, fined congregants for gathering outdoor in their cars, allowing casino’s to operate at 50% capacity while churches can only have a maximum of 50 people, a decision upheld by what was a 5-4 leftist majority court, (Roberts is no conservative), all in the name of keeping us safe.

It’s all about keeping us safe.

As author and political commentator Bob Siegel points out in a recent show:

In present day, things have gone from worse to drastic. In a recent Supreme Court 5-4 decision, siding with California Governor Newsome against churches insisting on the right to open up and worship freely without government interference, Chief Justice Roberts writes, “Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, these restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. He also attempted to explain this so-called consistency with the freedom to worship and assemble. Roberts said, “Similar or more severe restrictions appear to comparable secular gatherings including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports and theatrical performances where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. The order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats in which neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”

Bob then explains the problem with Roberts’ reasoning:

“This explanation from our Chief Justice fails because it lacks a coherent definition of free exercise by commenting on how we supposedly still have our religious freedom. Freedom of religion means we decide what it means to practice our religion. We decide. Make no mistake, we, not the government, we cannot be truly practicing Christianity without obeying the Bible’s instruction regarding said practice. The glaring example in this case is that meeting and worshipping together are a large part of what the Bible commands. Heb. 10:25: “let us not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, which is the habit of some…. My friends, if they can tell us whether or not to meet, they can tell us whether or not to preach the gospel.”

Troubling words indeed, yet completely true. They’ve already told us we can’t sing praises to God under the guise that singing supposedly spreads Covid; who’s to say that the gospel is not on the chopping block of the left?

And speaking of chopping blocks. In complete alignment with the history of the left, you now have New York’s finest cracking down on gatherings of Orthodox Jews under the guise that their gathering has more than ten people. I shared this on my Twitter and you can view it in the transcript of this show or at my handle @WorldNewsCGM.

The officer was explaining in the video that there was a problem that there were ten people in the home.

While tweeting the video out I was inspired to share this:

This is how it begins. In Western societies we can’t just shut down Jewish communities `    because we hate them, we must provide some pretense first. #COVID19 gives local tyrants the pretense necessary to enact their hard left agenda, which always includes antisemitism.

I’m not going to claim those cops were antisemitic – I do not know their hearts. But the images of cops cracking down on gatherings of Jews is not good, especially when we have examples of police cracking down on outdoor Jewish funerals while indoor funerals for Democrat heroes are more than welcome to be performed. Let’s not forget the programs of the USSR that for decades persecuted Jewish groups, even breaking into Jewish homes and killing the family members. Perhaps you know someone whose grandfather had that happen to. I do, and she happens to be my wife. Her grandfather and his brother barely escaped and ended up as stowaways on a ship to America. The rest of the family was murdered after Russian troops burst into their home. Welcome to Socialism on full display.

You might say, “Well, you’ve only given examples having to do with assaults on freedom of religion. That doesn’t mean the other parts of the First Amendment are threatened.”

First, I would respond with, if we don’t have freedom of religion, we don’t have freedom at all. As a Christian, what else would be more important to me than my right under a Constitutional Republic to follow Jesus Christ as His Holy Spirit and my conscience would dictate? God Himself is eternal, and the eternal is infinitely more important than the temporal. Certainly a right to criticize my political opposition in a society where the exchange of ideas flows freely is important, even fundamentally important, but it pales in comparison to the freedom to exercise my religious beliefs, which as a Christian most certainly includes speech as well.

In short, if you don’t have freedom of religion, the most important of all freedoms, you do not have freedom.

Second, there are a plethora of examples of those leaders in our society, even at the highest levels, that have made it clear that freedom of speech, not just the free exercise of your religion, is on the chopping block as well.

Take the example of the 2009 case Citizens United v. FEC, a landmark Supreme Court decision that free speech advocates won only by a single Justice. The question before the court was whether or not the federal government can restrict corporations, non-profits, labor unions, and other organizations from restricting political speech and communications. Citizens United had made a film critical of Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primaries, which was apparently a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which would not allow any of those groups from engaging in “electioneering communication” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election.

As Ken Klukowski, a senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, noted:

Far more important than the specific facts in this case was the enormous scope of power that the Obama Administration was claiming under BCRA, an array so broad that the justices balked at the government’s answers to their questions. The Obama Administration claimed that BCRA allows the federal government to ban a 600-page book if it mentions a candidate’s name only once, a 90-minute movie if it mentions a candidate’s name once, or even a toy action figure of a candidate. If the organization uses a single dime of its general funds to produce, promote or distribute any such materials during the “blackout” periods, it becomes a federal crime.

Banning movies, action figures… books? The adage, “where books burn, men will soon burn,” comes to mind. This was a sitting US president attempting to stifle political speech through the power of a federal bureaucracy in direct violation of the First Amendment, a slope so steep only a war of revolution could overcome if implemented.

Or take the case of Chick-fil-a being blocked from opening at San Antonio International Airport because of the company’s supposed “legacy of anti-lgbtq behavior.” Incredibly, here, in the United States of America, a private company is discriminated against because of their moral views, which of course is informed by their Christian beliefs made famous by Dan Cathy’s infamous radio interview where he stated:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.”

I realize that since then Chick-fil-a has compromised on that issue, but that’s not the point. The point is this should have never happened in the first place, and the government of San Antonio should never have been able to discriminate against them based on the free speech of their CEO. Texas ended up passing a bill, SB1978, that would allow Chick-fil-a to open up there, but they ultimately decided to pass. That’s fine, but only because it was their choice to do so.

Also on speech, Bob Siegel again shares an extremely important example related to free speech:

Here in California, they keep attempting to pass legislation and they pass some things that are slowly infringing on the rights of christian counselors to say what they want about marriage, and same sex relationships, and reparative therapy. Whether you believe in it or not, the point is we should be free to speak our viewpoints. So it’s slowly happening, that’s how dictatorships come into power. It begins with a crisis, and I’ve said this many times, that we can accept that Coronavirus is real, and accept the government is exploiting it at the same time. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas. Many of our governors have freely admitted that they’re going to use this crisis to advance their agenda, and the normal that they want is a redistribution of wealth, and socialism, and a limitation of freedom of speech. And it begins by saying, “well we’re just trying to protect you, or be at home, or wear a mask, or have social distancing, or only so many people in a room, or actually this month don’t meet at all. That’s where it begins…it starts when they take our freedom away a bit at a time, and they always do it in the name of our safety. And I’ve said this before but I can’t say it too many times, when the same mayors and governors who told the police to stand down while people were being beaten and shot and buildings were being burnt down and vandalism was rampant; when the same mayors and governors who told the police to stand down have the nerve to turn to the rest of us and put us on lock down because they only care about our safety? Their pledge for our safety had to do with the police doing their job. You should never again believe them when they say they care about our safety.”

Bob could not have more brilliantly pointed that out. Length does not afford me to chronicle it here, but Covid-19 has given the inner tyrant of leftist politicians permission to go full board. On top of trying to ruin everything from church to school to your small business or job, Governor Newsome now wants to ruin your Thanksgiving, all in the name of your safety. Too bad he was just fine with mass shoulder to shoulder protests and rioting of tens of thousands of people that apparently worked in favor of his totalitarian cause. Here are some the truly disgusting and ludicrous rules Newsome has in store for your Thanksgiving:

-Gatherings should be two hours or less. The longer the duration, the risk of transmission increases.

-Singing, chanting, shouting, and physical exertion significantly increases the risk of COVID-19 transmission because these activities increase the release of respiratory droplets and fine aerosols into the air. Because of this, singing, chanting, and shouting are strongly discouraged, but if they occur, the following rules and recommendations apply [list of rules follows

-Instrumental music is allowed as long as the musicians maintain at least 6-foot physical distancing. Musicians must be from one of the three households.  Playing of wind instruments (any instrument played by the mouth, such as a trumpet or clarinet) is strongly discouraged.

No, ladies and gentlemen, that was not a spoof news article from the Babylon Bee. Californians  just had Gavin Newsome tell them whether or not you can have instruments at your Thanksgiving gathering, and apparently disappointed quite a few eighth-grade girls who were anxiously awaiting the chance to show off their middle-school band tunes to their extended family. Besides it being like something out of the Twilight Zone, this is what happens when the government gets absolutely out of control and attempts to wield unlimited power. I truly wonder when Gavin’s secret police will begin showing up at the door of TV and radio personalities that criticize him – to start.

But we really shouldn’t be all too surprised. The ideological and moral compass of the Democratic Party these days is the violent, racist, Marxist group Black Lives Matter. Right on BLM’s very own website, before they took it down of course, it clearly states that it wants to “disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family,” as if no one had thought of a family consisting of a mother, father, and children in the East. But since BLM hates the West, and they hate the nuclear family, it’s much easier to destroy it if they put it in the camp of the West. Then it deserves to be destroyed, because everything from the West apparently is terrible while everything that originated in the East, such as slavery and tyranny, are worth burning our cities down for.

And to cap off the free speech issue just look no further than our universities as a microcosm of what’s to come for the US as a whole. Not only is flat out segregation of dorms and other activities based on skin color rampant in colleges across the nation, harkening us back to to the pre-civil rights era, freedom of speech has been under constant attack, with such incredible examples of conservative speakers not even being able to speak on campus, and having to spend large amounts of money for personal security while attempting to engage in what used to be a normal aspect of campus life.

In a saga happening now, University of Oklahoma students are calling on the cancellation of an Ann Coulter event with Turning Point USA scheduled for Nov. 5, citing concerns about her “hatred” and “bigotry.” A student at Loyola Marymount University was recently impeached, yes, impeached after pro-Trump social media posts resurfaced. She was the first senator to be impeached in the school’s history. Why? Because she was of the political opposition. That’s a perfect picture of the modus operandi of leftism, or, perhaps more appropriately, downism, on full display. Impeaching someone because they’re of the political opposition… sound familiar?

Past events include conservative commentator Ben Shapiro being heavily protested and barely able to speak, ironically, at the birthplace of the campus free speech movement, the University of California at Berkeley. 9 arrests were made, including some who had weapons:

— Hannah Benjamin, 20, was arrested for battery on a police officer and carrying a banned weapon.
— Sarah Roark, 44, was taken into custody for carrying a banned weapon.

Security for the event cost the University $600,000. Wrap your head around that – $600k so a guy like Shapiro, who is never shy about criticizing the current Republican president when he disagrees, can speak at a place that is supposed to be known for its free exchange of ideas.

This was after both Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter were scheduled to speak at Berkeley, both of whom ended up having to cancel due to the protesting. What were these kids so afraid of? And perhaps the larger question must be asked, who made them so afraid?

And before we end, how many of us have heard pundits say hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment or that some speech needs to be chilled? Let me be very clear: if hate speech is not protected, no speech is protected.

If hate speech is not protected, no speech is protected.

Why is that? Because he who determines what hate speech is depends on who is in power. Some claim teaching the Bible, because its statements on matters such as homosexuality, is hate speech. Or, if you call a biological woman a woman when she wants to be called a man, which is illegal in some contexts, is hate speech. Of course, the next group that gets in could consider Darwin’s Origin of the Species hate speech and persecute anyone who teaches it. You have an unending cycle of everyone accusing everyone else of hate speech and it becomes an ungovernable disaster, not to mention a platform for unmitigated bigotry and mass persecution of those who dissent from the ruling elites.

I have an honest question to ask you. How often do you hear today’s Democrat party talk about freedom of speech or freedom of religion? I hear a lot about a free press – but only because they’re out of power and thus need the free press to take down who to them is the most repulsive man to ever walk the earth, Donald Trump.

But how often do you hear them talk about freedom and the importance of upholding the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution? It’s an honest question I would humbly ask and encourage you to reflect upon.

When it comes to religious liberty and free speech there are zillions of examples we could site, but I think it’s time to land the plane here and ask the elephant in the room question: which party has been promoting the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and even freedom of assembly, and which has been restricting?

Considering it was the Trump administration who signed the executive order promoting free speech on college campuses, the Trump administration who signed an executive order easing restrictions on churches tyrannically placed on them by Lyndon Johnson via the Johnson Amendment, which eases a restriction that stops them from endorsing political candidates. It is Republican states and governors that are allowing churches to gather while Democrat states are trying to keep them, along with other gatherings, closed, all in the name, of course, of our safety.

Here’s my message for this election that I think should be implanted in the brain of every voter and every kid that will one day vote: There is no republican or democrat. There is no right or left!

Just look at the parties not too long ago and how they’ve shifted:

The Republican party, once the party of foreign invasion and nation building is now the anti-war party crying to bring our troops home, amazingly to the resistance now of the Democrat party!

The Republican party, once silent on LBGT issues has now openly embraced those people as welcome in the party, something unthinkable only a few short years ago. Them, along with minority groups such as blacks and latinos, are flocking to the Republican party, even with major black rappers such as 50 Cent, Ice Cube, and Lil Pump, all with enormous followings. We could see black support for Trump at 20% plus and Hispanic support for Trump upwards of 50 percent!

The Democrat party not too long ago was the party of civil liberties and a right to privacy and even former president Obama championed those rights in the Senate in ways that would confound us, and the party as a whole railing against the surveillance introduced by the Patriot Act. Now it is the party of the ultimate surveillance state, with even a former contender for the Democrat party presidential nomination , Andrew Yang, hinting at wanting to implement China’s full-bore Orwellian surveillance state social credit system, where the government rewards you for “good behavior.” It does not take long for the imagination to go to where such stringent surveillance of our every moment could lead.

It was not too long ago that president Obama spoke clearly to his own community about the derision placed upon those who are “able to link a noun and a verb,” yet now some in his party consider learning proper English to be racist!”

It was not long ago that all people could believe that it was wrong for a man to go into a woman’s bathroom, or that gender reassignment surgery for young children was a bad idea, or calling men “men” or women “women” based on their biology, or biological males competing against girls in sports to the detriment of the girls, or censoring speech at all, whether on campus or online through the Social Media tech gods, or shutting down churches, or arresting pastors and fining congregants, were all bad things.

There’s one party that promotes that tyranny, and another party that fights against it.

No, the Republican party is not perfect, in fact, it is far from it. But it’s the only party attempting to preserve our basic freedoms, where the other seems more than willing, in fact exuberant, to suppress them, all the way down to the very first of all American holidays, Thanksgiving. Many are even making open threats that “political terror” is coming regardless of who wins the election.

In a recent interview, Senator Kamala Harris was asked if her agenda was a socialist or progressive agenda. Considering the non-partisan Govtrack places her to the left of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in her Ideology Score, it would appear to be a valid question. In fact, she beats everyone in the Senate as the Senator furthest to the left. Listen to how she responded when asked this question on CBS. This short video is worth every second.

It’s no wonder they want to hide her views – not only does she cackle like a Disney villain, there’s no way her hard left agenda could be sold to the American people directly. It has to be the ultimate bait and switch – elect kind old Uncle Joe who America is more familiar and comfortable with, and swiftly replace him with someone of the freedom crushing ideology of Karl Marx. We cannot, as a people, allow this to happen to our nation.

The sudden burst of laughter and high pitched speech after the question is a sure fire sign that she’s in deception mode – it wasn’t a funny question, and her skin color had nothing to do with what was being asked. Her body language screamed that yes, it was a Socialist/Progressive agenda she’d be implementing from her first day as VP to her first day as President after a 25th Amendment coup is pulled on a president who, by any objective measure, is most certainly in cognitive decline.

I began with Reagan and I’ll end with Reagan, because Reagan for his time was rather clairvoyant in the threat to freedom right here at home, and defended and promoted freedom on the world stage as president perhaps more than any other president before his time. Listen to how he ends his A Time for Choosing speech, 56 years ago today:

He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

There is no right or left, there is no Republican or Democrat – there is only an up or down – freedom or tyranny: and right now the American people once again are in a time for choosing – a choice to govern themselves, knowing full well they are ultimately accountable to God Almighty alone, or to be slaves of a Socialist/Communist state where free expression and personal liberties are non-existent, and persecution of dissenters is the norm. Remember, it was president Donald Trump who boldly declared directly to those promoting the tyrannical ideology, “America will never be a Socialist nation.”

The ball is in our court, and I believe and pray that the American people will choose wisely and give the current Administration four more years. Thank you and God bless and may God bless America.

Updated: October 27, 2020 — 3:35 pm