Pastor Brad Winship: Liberals' justification of violence

Pastor Brad Winship of God & Country Radio delivers a weekly message from his Monmouth County church.  This week, Pastor Winship discusses liberalism's justification of violence:

This continuing series is about core principles and policies within the Kingdom of Man (the unsaved people in the world).  The Bible describes these foundations in the story of Cain – the progenitor of the Kingdom of Man.   This week’s program is about the violence in the heart of unregenerate men against God, His truth, and His people.  Jesus warned us continually to expect the hatred and persecution of the world.  It is no surprise that this age ends in the widespread martyrdom of the church. ( Revelation. 6:9 ). 
Dozens of violent movements and acts throughout history could be used to illustrate this point, but the current example is Antifa.  I explain, in this program, how the political left is now justifying violence on the grounds that it is just to “punch” those who promote hate speech.  The error is (1) defining hate speech as any conservative morality I do not like, and (2) disregarding the police and taking justice into one’s own hand.  The technique is to label everyone on the right as Nazis and then to claim that because Nazism was so bad, it is justifiable to do whatever is necessary to stop the Nazis – even if you have to do violence. 
This justification for violence was used by the Nazis themselves, by the Bolsheviks, by the Chicoms, by every violent group in history; and it will be used by the anti-Christ and his followers to persecute Christians. 
Scripture References:  Genesis 4:8 ; Matthew 10:22 , 24:9 ; John 15:19 , 16:2 , 17:14 ; Revelation 6:9 ; Romans 3:15 ; 1 Peter 2:12 , 4:15 ; Genesis 6:5 , 11

Pastor Winship can be heard at the following times:

  Bridge Christian Radio - Sunday 9 pm
        89.7 FM - Monmouth / Ocean Counties, NJ
        91.9 FM - Middlesex/ Monmouth Counties, NJ
        95.1 FM - NYC
        103.1 FM - Metro New Jersey & NYC
        99.7 FM - Sullivan County, NY
        106.9 FM - Poughkeepsie, NY

WTTP-LP - Lima, Ohio101.1. FM- - Saturday 12:30 am; Sunday at 3:30 pm

KKMC in Monterey County, CA - Saturday 9 AM and 7 PM

Listen anytime at   * Click on Program (Left click - The audio should begin playing) (Right click - To save to your computer or device) 

Join Pastor Winship's online at

Murphy should denounce ANTIFA tactics against Space family

Democrat State Committee member Ben Silva is using ANTIFA tactics in an attempt to damage the Space family farm and business.  Silva, who identifies himself as the campaign manager for Democrat candidates Kate Matteson & Gina Trish, has been part of an effort to give Space Farms negative reviews on Facebook. 

There have also been harassing calls made to family members and people who work there.  These have included threats of violence. 

Even the animals have been threatened... over their names.

One Matteson-Trish activist who admitted to calling and harassing employees actually compared Assemblyman Parker Space to Charles Manson. 

All this over a photograph from a tailgate party at a Hank Williams Jr. concert, in which a photograph was taken of the Assemblyman and his wife in front of a Hank Williams Jr. band banner called "The Hank Williams Jr. Rebel Flag."

What is happening to the Space family is happening all over America right now.  It's the most recent face of the old anarchist-communist movement -- now calling itself ANTIFA.  As the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, " Antifa activists also search for and publicize damaging information on their targets or opponents, or launch campaigns pressuring their bosses or companies to fire those opponents."

What Democrat Party officials like Ben Silva are doing to the Space Family and their farm business is right out of the ANTIFA playbook.  Here is more from Monday's Wall Street Journal report:

Antifa activists believe in censorship and don’t rule out violence, as they showed again Sunday. 

...They’re mostly anarchists and anarcho-communists, and they often refer to fellow protesters as “comrades.” Adherents typically despise the government and corporate America alike, seeing police as defenders of both and thus also legitimate targets.

The anti-fascist anarchist website recently summarized its philosophy: “In this state of affairs, there is no such thing as nonviolence—the closest we can hope to come is to negate the harm or threat posed by the proponents of top-down violence . . . so instead of asking whether an action is violent, we might do better to ask simply: does it counteract power disparities, or reinforce them?”

Antifa’s activists use the Orwellian-sounding notion of “anticipatory self-defense” to justify direct confrontation. That can include violence, vandalism and other unlawful tactics. Many draw a false moral distinction between damaging private property and “corporate” property.

Antifa activists have also developed their own moral justification for suppressing free speech and assembly. As anarchists, they don’t want state censorship. But they do believe it’s the role of a healthy civil society to make sure some ideas don’t gain currency.

So they heartily approve of the heckler’s veto, seeking to shut down speeches and rallies that they see as abhorrent. Antifa activists also search for and publicize damaging information on their targets or opponents, or launch campaigns pressuring their bosses or companies to fire those opponents.

Words don’t constitute violence, despite what Antifa activists believe. But there are dangerous ideas and practices, and the radical left has embraced several of them. Democracies solve conflict through debate, not fisticuffs. But Antifa’s protesters believe that some ideas are better fought with force, and that some people are incapable of reason.

Implicit in this view is that Antifa alone has the right to define who is racist, fascist or Nazi. It’s a guerilla twist on the culture wars, when a microaggression must be met with a macroaggression.

To read the entire Wall Street Journal report and view an interesting video on the subject, visit:

CNN has an excellent report called "Unmasking ANTIFA".  You can access it here:

Democrat gubernatorial candidate Phil Murphy should distance himself from these tactics.  His failure to do so counts as an endorsement of them.

Who are the Red-Shirts?

NJ 101.5 talk radio host Bill Spadea began using the term "Red-Shirt" in association with his campaigns for public office.  Later, he labeled members of his "Building a New Majority" movement as "Red Shirt volunteers."

It will be remembered that Spadea's ideology was on full display when -- in the 1990's, he ran the College Republican National Committee.  In 1995, numerous media outlets reported that the Republican National Committee cut off all funding to Spadea's group after it paid for advertisements that attacked Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and urged the formation of a far-right alternative to the Republican Party.

Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour has written a letter to College Republican National Committee Chairman Bill Spadea, stating that "because of the recent and continuing irresponsible conduct" of the CRNC, "under your leadership, the RNC will cease contributing to your efforts."

"The conduct referred to has been the subject of repeated discussions between our organizations," said Mr. Barbour, ". . . yet you have chosen to continue your irresponsible activities."  (The Washington Times, January 31, 1995) 

RNC Chairman Haley Barbour recently informed the college group that he was cutting off funds, including rent and salaries, and rerouting phone calls to the national party's office because an article in the magazine urged formation of a third party.  

Tense relations between the two groups stem from Spadea's extreme conservative views. RNC members feel he represents only a small, extreme faction, but Spadea says he has national support.  

''What I'm doing is publishing ideas that are raging throughout the party already,'' Spadea said in an interview from his new office in Vienna, Va.  The December issue of the magazine - in addition to advocating creation of a third party with political views to the right of the Republican Party - also contained an advertisement attacking Republican presidents Reagan and Bush.  

The RNC provided 60 percent of the group's $120,000 budget for 1994, but Spadea said he no longer wants that money. (Memphis Commercial Appeal, February 5, 1995)

So from where in American history does the term "Red Shirt" come?  Wikipedia provides this information:

The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist[1][2] paramilitary groups that were active in the late 19th century after the end of the Reconstruction era of the United States. They first appeared in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both white and freedmen. Similar groups in the Carolinas also adopted red shirts.

Among the most prominent Red Shirts were the supporters of Democratic Party candidate Wade Hampton during the campaigns for the South Carolina gubernatorial elections of 1876 and 1878.[3] The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations, such as the White League in Louisiana, arising in the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s. These groups acted as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."[4]

While sometimes engaging in violence, the Red Shirts, the White League and similar groups in the late nineteenth century worked openly and were better organized than the secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by freedmen.[5] During the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic voters.

According to E. Merton Coulter in The South During Reconstruction, the red shirt was adopted in Mississippi in 1875 by "southern brigadiers" opposed to black Republicans. The Red Shirts disrupted Republican rallies, intimidated or assassinated black leaders, and discouraged black voting at the polls.

The red shirt in South Carolina appeared in Charleston on August 25, 1876, during a Democratic torchlight parade. It was to mock the waving of the bloody shirt speech by Senator Oliver Morton in the Senate that was meant to bolster support for the Republicans' Reconstruction policies in South Carolina. The red shirt symbolism quickly spread. The accused in the Hamburg Massacre wore red shirts as they marched on September 5 to their arraignment in Aiken, South Carolina. Martin Gary, the organizer of the Democratic campaign in 1876, mandated that his supporters were to wear red shirts at all party rallies and functions.

Wearing a red shirt became a source of pride and resistance to Republican rule for white Democrats in South Carolina. Women sewed red flannel shirts and made other garments of red. It also became fashionable for women to wear red ribbons in their hair or about their waists. For young men, a red shirt was viewed as compensation for their inability to have contributed to the Southern cause because of their age.[6]

So now you know the rest of the story.

NJ Leg should condemn police beheading image

The New Jersey Legislature has issued formal condemnations, in the form of resolutions, of everything from the Flag of Saint Patrick (because it looked a little like the Confederate Flag, even though it was  around hundreds of years before the Confederacy) to the State of North Carolina (because it has a law that keeps trans-men out of girls' toilets).  We would like to draw their attention to something tweeted the other day by an NFL player. 

As we know, sports stars, particularly football players, are often held as role models by children and young adults.  The citizens of New Jersey, led by their Legislature, should make clear their collective position on such violent images aimed at the police officers who are our friends, family, and neighbors. 

While we cannot and should not attempt to ban free speech, even free speech that is disturbing, we can and should reply to such speech with speech.  A strong unambiguous condemnation will let the publishers of such images know that their efforts have backfired.

Sen. Weinberg's son advocates gun violence

Hey, it is his right to postsomething in bad taste, but this does raise the question:  Just who is Momma Weinberg to lecture us?

Daniel J. Weinberg, the middle-aged son of New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, is clearly no fan of Republican front-runner and presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

The Violent May 5th post by Daniel J Weinberg was open to public view for 19 days, and though Weinberg is the son of a powerful New Jersey Democrat, no one in the media seemed to notice… or at least they, didn’t seem to care.

Shortly after Marcus Max commented on the post, noting that Weinberg was advocating for gun violence against those with whom he disagrees politically, an embarrassed Weinberg apparently made his Facebook profile private and/or deleted the violent image advocating that Republican front-runner Trump commit suicide.

Unfortunately for Weinberg, Max made screen captures first.

Daniel J. Weinberg’s mother, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, is among the most radical gun control supporters in not just New Jersey, but the United States.

Courtesy of Bob Owens @