A Modern Woman's Perspective On The Kingdom of God on Earth

Showing posts with label Big Brother. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Brother. Show all posts

January 6, 2016

The Stand-Off In Oregon: Who's Right and Who's Wrong?

     Once again, there seems to be a powder keg about to be lit in America.  This time it is a standoff that involves the Hammond family of Oregon and the Federal government, and self-appointed patriots, spearheaded by Ammon Bundy of Nevada, who sincerely believe they are guarding the Constitutional rights of citizens.  But it is easy to get caught up in the rhetoric and the emotions, and difficult to discern the truth from the innuendo and personal agendas.
      After reading several accounts from various news sources, this is the case, as I understand it.... Everything takes place in the context of the Fish and Wildlife Service buying up all the land around the Hammond ranch for a wildlife refuge. Apparently owning half the land in the West was not good enough for the feds; more was better. Then, the feds allegedly took what seemed like retaliatory actions against the Hammonds after they refused to sell.
     The current crisis stems around what were designed to be controlled burns (or fires) conducted by the Hammonds in 2001 on their land; the first, to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.  Interestingly enough, a range conservationist for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) stated that this fire improved the rangeland conditions owned by the BLM.  Let me also say that burns such as this are common among ranchers and farmers in order to control invasive trees and plant life that can prohibit farming and grazing on private lands.
     There was then a second fire, in 2006, which was a backfire started by Steven Hammond to protect their property from fires being set by lightning.  Steven's wife, Susan, later testified in court, "There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning.”  However, the BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds’ backfire, and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is “a joke” because fires [from the lightning strikes] burned from every direction.
      The result of this actions was convictions by the federal government against the Hammond's for two counts of arson.  The dispute was over whether they intended the fires to spread to public lands, and a jury convicted Steven Hammond and his father, Dwight.  The judge in the case said that the damage to some juniper trees and sagebrush did not warrant the five-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and sentenced Dwight Hammond, the dad, to three months, and twelve months and a day for Steven Hammond, which they have served.
      But now, the Ninth Circuit has held that the minimum five-year sentence was not so disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. So,  now the Hammond's have been resentenced to five years in prison, under an antiterrorism law passed by Congress.  In fact, they made it clear that they intended to voluntarily turn themselves in and serve out the remainder of their sentence, under those federal minimum sentencing statutes, and after losing  in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  And that brings us to the current standoff in Oregon.
     Since the Hammond's are willing to return to prison to serve the full five years of the mandatory minimum, they do not wish any interference from anti-government or patriot groups which see this case as an overreach by the government.  The Bundy group, however, is the same group of people who backed Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher, who accused federal government officials of trying to illegally push his cattle off of protected BLM federal land.  That standoff came perilously close to pitting armed civilians against federal government agencies, with echoes of Ruby Ridge and Waco.  Fortunately, the government backed down and disaster was averted.
     But, somehow the Bundy group feels strongly that it is imperative they take a stand for the Hammond family, even though the Hammond family has not asked for help, nor do they want it.  Furthermore, since Saturday, the Bundy protesters have taken over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge visitor’s building, and refuse to leave until the five-year prison sentences handed by the Justice Department to the Hammond's are softened.  
     Naturally, this has caused a firestorm among politicians, lawmakers, constitutionalists, and patriot-minded Americans.  Everyone from Presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, to Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, to TV personality Montel Williams, have weighed in.  Rubio and Cruz both call for an end to the standoff and the end to lawlessness.  Cruz said, “Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds.  But we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others. And so it is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation.”  Rubio added that while he agreed with critics of federal land use policy, “Let me just say, first of all, you’ve got to follow the law... There are states dominated by the federal government in terms of land holding and we should fix it, but no one should be doing it in a way that’s outside the law. We are a nation of laws, we should follow those laws and they should be respected.”
     While the Oath Keepers organization is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, they do not intend to insert themselves in a situation where they are not wanted.  Their founder, Stewart Rhodes, released the following statement:  We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it.   Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this.  No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes.  You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.
     But then there are those like Montel Williams, who appears to encourage lawlessness by government officials, themselves, in the face of constitutional protests.  Williams said in several Twitter messages he’s quite OK with authorities using deadly force to take out the Oregon protesters who’ve taken over a federal building – that they’re “buffoons” with “terrorist” tendencies and unworthy of constitutional protections.  What?!?  Deadly force?  Unworthy of constitutional protections?  As nervous as it makes me for the protestors to push the envelope of civil disobedience, this kind of talk from a celebrity mouthpiece sickens me.  Since when does a private citizen feel compelled to call for deadly force against another citizen?  And who is he to judge that they are not due constitutional protection?
     While it sometimes seems to me that man's laws are becoming subject to tyrants and public opinion, I must remind myself that all government has been instituted by God.  I know, I know, that is so difficult to understand in the midst of perceived injustice.  But we must remember that there can be NO power, of ANY government, except what God allows.  So we must always keep in mind that He is working out a purpose that is probably far different than what any personal agenda for “improvement” that we deem necessary.  When our leaders are self-serving—or even outright devilish—it is God’s responsibility to remove them—NOT OURS!
     If ever there was injustice, it was the Roman tyranny over Judah when Jesus walked the earth.  Yet our LORD did not advocate the overthrow of the Roman government, even though He could have called down armies of angels to do His will.  It is a difficult concept for us humans to know how to act in love and righteousness when faced with corruption, unfairness, tyranny, and repression.  No matter how hard it is to understand, we are called to follow our nation's laws until they are in direct conflict with God's laws -- no matter how wrong or unfair they seem.  From my Biblical standpoint, the Hammond's have taken the high, and more difficult, road.  May God's peace abound in the wake of their tough decision.

Thank you to Patterico's Pontifications website for the clear and precise understanding of the Hammond family's court cases.  

I Timothy 2:1-2     "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

August 13, 2015

Look What We've Set In Motion!

     I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.  It has been less than two months since the Supreme Court's historical decision striking down traditional marriage and conferring the Biblical state of matrimony upon basically everyone, regardless of sex.  In less than two months, the State has begun exerting its power over those who wish to preserve the religious liberty heretofore guaranteed them by the First Amendment.
     We have seen County Clerks forced to choose between their job and their faith when they decline to issue marriage licenses based on their religious convictions.  We have seen the growing threat against the tax status of Churches who have stated they will refuse to conduct same-sex marriages. There is also the threat against military chaplains who will not disavow the Bible's teachings on marriage. And now there is the case of a prison chaplain who was told he could either sign a state-mandated document promising to never tell inmates that homosexuality is “sinful” or else the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice would revoke his credentials.
     Saying that "it broke his heart", Chaplain David Wells could not comply with the demand and saw his volunteer credentials as an ordained minister revoked – ending 13 years of ministry to underage inmates at the Warren County Regional Juvenile Detention Center.  Those years of ministry included many counseling sessions with youth who were sexually abused both inside and outside the justice system.  Having been abused as a child, Wells was uniquely qualified to help young men deal with the horrors of incarceration and the sexual abuse that often accompanied it.
     “I sat across the table from a 16-year-old boy who was weeping and broken over the life he was in,” Wells said. “He had been abused as a child and turned to alcohol and drugs to cope. He wanted to know if there was any hope for him.... I was able to look at him and tell him the saving power of Jesus Christ that delivered me – [and] could deliver him,” he said.  He was able to counsel the young man, that is, as long as he did not refer to Biblical opinions on homosexuality, which would understandably be part of any conversation about prison rape or sexual abuse within the walls of the juvenile institution.
     I confess that it was difficult for me to find any solid statistics on the rate of sexual abuse in prison.  There were allusions to it, but often no hard numbers.  And if there were, they seemed incredibly low to me ... one claiming only 140,000 assaults in the entire U.S. justice system, and less than 1500 among juveniles.  Yet the personal testimony in the link above makes it clear that the cases are grossly underestimated.  And that makes Chaplain Wells's dismissal even more tragic.
      So, essentially, what we have is this monumental Supreme Court decision that will affect so much more than an individual's right to call themselves "married".  It has the potential to remove all Christian influence from our cultural conversation.  There is now no absolute moral code.  The Supreme Court has essentially ruled that individuals have civil rights based on their sexual behavior, whatever that might be.  For now, that has been expanded to mean two men, or two women.  We are already seeing challenges to that.
     A man in Montana plans to sue after being denied a marriage license to wed a second wife.  And can you really say that you do not foresee someone who wants to marry his pet, which constitutes what the Bible calls Bestiality?  And what about a personal robot?  Think that's preposterous?  Just read this article that presents all the arguments we can expect to hear in the near future.
    And then there is the abhorrent organization NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) which was founded in 1978 and whose aim is to overturn statutory rape laws and force the reduction of “age of consent” laws that require a child to be of a certain age (which varies by state) before they can agree to sexual intercourse.  (Please know that, in general, the LGBT community is just as appalled by this organization and disassociates themselves from NAMBLA).
     I can remember Dr. Laura warning of this organization 20 years ago, and she was nearly laughed off the airwaves for even suggesting that this group existed, or that they promoted and "celebrated the dignity inherent in the natural love of boys."  That's called Pedophilia by any other name.  Yet how long before their individual civil rights will be upheld by the Supreme Court?  If it is the law of the land that one's civil rights cannot be denied on the basis of sexual behavior, what limitations have been put in place?  None that I can see.
     While I truly believe that our lost society will eventually embrace all these aberrations, as eccentric as they seem, I also have profound confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to enable those of us who believe in the Word of God to resist these societal changes that fundamentally contradict our faith.  But we must expect pushback and resistance.  Indeed, because we have been silent too long, and have tried too hard to be accommodating and "politically correct", we are now paying the price that comes with compromise, and it will result in social conflict.
     But we must not draw back or shrink from our commission to speak God's commandments into the world.  We understand, like Chaplain Wells, that our Christian influence will be limited by the State.  But God will anoint us with powerful testimonies that will overcome the barriers erected by men.  Like the mighty Apostles of old, we will come back from apparent defeat.  We will not be intimidated; and the strength and boldness that comes from the indwelling Spirit will be evident to all.  So, while the future is unforeseeable, we can be sure of one thing ... the Lord will tolerate only so much transgression before He sets things aright.  And with possibilities such as the aforementioned, we certainly seem to be nearing that limit...

2 Chronicles 16:9    "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward Him. You have done foolishly in this, for from now on you will have wars."

June 27, 2015

A Letter To My Gay Friends

In the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, I would like to address my gay friends.  Yes, I have friends who are gay.  And I worded it that way because I see them as my friends first, and their lifestyle choice as second in regards to my relationship with them.  I see them as people; as individuals  whom I respect; whose company I enjoy, and whose talents and intellect I admire; and yes, as people I care deeply about.  It is true that we have a fundamental difference in how we few the institution of marriage, and I have never shied away from my position that no laws by men or for men will cause me to deny my Lord's Word.
     However, it should be our mutual desire that our differences will not cause a disruption or interruption in our friendship.  I am determined to demonstrate my God’s love while revealing His truth to the world, and without fear.  That means that I will continue to believe in "Biblical marriage" as the standard, but I recognize that this world has determined otherwise.  I will respect your right to embrace this new law, as I hope you respect mine to continue to endorse God's law.
     I would never presume to deny any person's capacity to love; after all, it is the second most important commandment in the Bible.  I simply believe that the concept of marriage is greater than any "rights" determined by man or court.  It is my understanding that the Supreme Court was deciding whether the states were denying gay couples their "civil rights" by banning gay marriage in their individual states.  It is also my understanding that "civil rights" refers to the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.  And obviously, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage advocates are due those rights, as it pertains to the legal description.  It is now the law of the land and you have been granted those legal rights.  I understand why you would celebrate that.
     But I would like to explain that my definition of marriage goes beyond anything this world defines as political or social "rights", and it aligns with the Bible.  To me, God's laws are higher than man's laws.  It's that simple.  And because you are my friend, I am assuming that you know that God's opinion matters more to me than this culture's or the world.  That's why I take it to heart when the Word says, "Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother [the Bible's definition of a family], and shall cleave [join to] his wife; and they shall be one flesh [resulting in a child]."  It was divinely ordained by God that marriage would consist of one man and one woman, for the express purpose of continuing His creation.  I know that's not sexy or romantic, but I believe marriage to be holy and sanctified; and it should be divinely interpreted by the One who created it, not a nine-person court ruled by their political and social opinions.  
     I have no desire to legislate anyone's relationship or condemn or judge the matter of love between two people; and I can understand your resolve to establish a legal definition of your partnership.  That is understandable and reasonable.  But I would like to request that my rights to my religious freedom (including my opinion, and how I act out my faith in this world) neither be challenged, questioned, or disputed.  That, too, is the law of the land.
     As far as I am concerned, this Supreme Court ruling changes nothing as far as our friendship.  I will continue to proclaim my allegiance to God's Word in all matters, while continuing to share that my Lord died for us all.  It is my fervent prayer that we can all live in the Light, and come to fellowship with each other; that the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.
     Undoubtedly, this ruling will lead to further challenges to my Christian faith, and I need you to understand that I cannot compromise my beliefs or disobey God.  I am not only a hearer of the Word, but a doer.  I do not think it too difficult to agree to mutually respect each other, and treat our differences with courtesy and civility.  There is no need for me to prolong this discussion or even make it a focus of my life.  In the end, God is my Authority, and I must rest on His Word.

James 5:16    "Confess to one another therefore your faults (your slips, your false steps, your offenses, your sins) and pray [also] for one another, that you may be healed and restored [to a spiritual tone of mind and heart]. The earnest (heartfelt, continued) prayer of a righteous man makes tremendous power available [dynamic in its working]."

June 26, 2015

One Shoe Has Dropped... Will The Other Follow?

     Be honest.  Did you really expect a different decision on the Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare subsidies?  Chief Justice Roberts had already telegraphed where his vote fell during his 2012 decision to uphold the law.
     I must admit that I am no political wonk or legal scholar.  My understanding of this law is greatly simplified.  But I'm smart enough to realize that this battle is not really about preserving health insurance for millions of Americans.  From the view of this average citizen, it is really about a battle being waged against middle class families, small business owners, and the senior citizens of this country.
     Here's how I see it ... these "subsidies", or tax breaks, or whatever disingenuous label you want to give them, are nothing more than increased taxes upon those who can least afford the extra burden of supporting those who cannot buy their own health insurance.  No matter how much high-minded discourse we hear that "everyone in America deserves to be covered by health insurance", or that "it is our duty to help those who need it most, or who can't afford it, or who have been denied access to it" ... it all comes down to this: where does everyone think that the money for these subsidies is going to come from?  Does anyone believe that the U.S. government has some secret stash of "health insurance subsidy funds" that will cover all these people?  And I'm not just talking about the millions of Americans who are on welfare and Medicaid.
     Has anyone figured out that all these illegal immigrants that are being fast-tracked to citizenship will also qualify for these subsidies?  Do you see where I'm going?  Millions of hard-working, tax-paying Americans are barely making ends meet, as they watch their own health insurance premiums sky-rocket.  Whether they pay for their health insurance directly, or they receive benefits through their companies, how long before the cost becomes just too much to pay for?
     The money has to come from somewhere to sustain the government's give-away program, and that always means higher taxes in some capacity.  If the real object of this law was to force us down the Socialist road, then the immigrant situation is playing nicely into that agenda ... more citizens who can't afford the health insurance that the law mandates they must have means more subsidies, which means more taxes and less individual freedom, as millions of Americans will be forced to abandon their small businesses and accept substandard insurance and medical care.
     Anyone who takes a serious look at these subsidies will realize that they do not accomplish what their proponents allege.  There are approximately 8.7 million Americans receiving an average of $272 subsidy a month to help pay their insurance premiums.  Anyone who has studied the costs of health insurance lately knows that this amount will likely purchase a policy with at least a $5000 deductible, depending on your age.  So what does this really accomplish, except a bill for $2,366,400,000 that must be paid for by the already burdened American taxpayer.  If a subsidized individual needs substantial medical care and cannot afford the deductible, then those costs will somehow be passed on to other insureds in the form of higher premiums.  Do you see that medical care in this country is in a costly death spiral?
     I, for one, simply cannot buy the argument that the subsidies are meant to keep enough people in the pool of insured to avoid triggering a disastrous decline in enrollment, a growing proportion of less healthy people, and premium increases by insurers.  Re-read the preceding paragraph if you are apt to fall for that false line of reasoning.  A mere $272 per month will not buy adequate health insurance, and it won't result in people getting better healthcare and remaining healthier.  And nothing is going to stop premiums from going higher.  The only thing subsidies will do is quicken the rate of the country's debt.
     Face it, folks.  The subsidies are inadequate, just as any proposed tax credits are.  This whole debate isn't really about quality healthcare for every American.  It's about breaking the backs of hard-working, self-sustaining Americans.  We knew it was coming, and the shoe has dropped.  In the next day or so, we will know how the same-sex marriage argument has been decided by the Supreme Court.  Will this be the final act that "transforms" America and rips apart the fabric of our nation?  Will it be the final act of disobedience that so offends God that He removes "the Restrainer", so that the full power of the Anti-Christ will be revealed and experienced?  It sure seems as if these days qualify for "the unrighteous deception", and "the strong delusion" that the Bible predicts.  And it certainly feels as if Evil is straining to be unleashed in all its full potential.
     Once upon a time, the Supreme Court stood as the referee in determining whether the President or Congress had strayed beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.  It now appears as if it has decided it can make up new rules, depending on the personal persuasions of the individual Justices.  But there is a Final Judgment coming, and it will be according to the One who will judge the living and the dead, and who will demand an accounting of their decisions against Him.  The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America would do well to consider that in their deliberations.

1 Timothy 5:21     "I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism."

May 18, 2015

Is Typhoid The New Ebola?

     A new study, which appeared in Nature Genetics, reports that an antibiotic-resistant strain of typhoid has begun to spread throughout eastern and southern Africa.  This report is fueling fear that typhoid may be quickly reaching epidemic levels.  The new strain, called H58, is a symptomatic bacterial infection, exasperated by unsanitary food and water.
     Typhoid fever affects between 20 million and 30 million people around the globe each year, and symptoms include a high, sustained fever, weakness, stomach pains, headache and loss of appetite.  As many as 20% of patients can die from the disease.  The evolving consensus from medical officials is that the unprecedented wave of cases (leading to their theory of a possible epidemic) is due to the lack of vaccinations for typhoid.  Vanessa Wong, a microbiologist at the University of Cambridge in England is quoted as saying,  "Instead, antibiotics are commonly used as a preventive measure. As a consequence, there is a rise in antibiotic resistance to many pathogens and in particular a resurgence of multidrug-resistant typhoid has been observed in some areas, including parts of Africa."
     While Typhoid fever is not as life-threatening as Ebola, one has to be concerned about the push for vaccinations.  True, we have heard the horrific historical stories of typhoid deaths -- in 430 BC, it is speculated that typhoid was the cause for the deaths of one-third of the population of Athens, Greece. Some historians believe the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia, died out from typhoid. Typhoid fever killed more than 6000 settlers between 1607 and 1624.  During the American Civil War, 81,360 Union soldiers died of typhoid or dysentery; and the Spanish-American War exposed our military to typhoid fever overseas.  I am in no way diminishing the dangers or effects of typhoid, but I am always skeptical when a disease is quickly labeled as an "epidemic", followed by a rush to vaccinate.
     As I researched this latest outbreak of typhoid, I was mildly surprised to see that similar "epidemic" headlines were posted in 2010 and 2012.  Yet, do you recall hearing any major alarms?  And each of the current reports all read the same ... " uncovered evidence of an unreported recent wave of transmission of H58 in sub-Saharan Africa".  Nothing more, nothing less.  Forgive me ... but if officials were truly convinced that we were facing a "plague" of typhoid, wouldn't we be seeing more panic and real faces on the news?
     I can't help but recall this exposé by A. True Ott, PhD, ND (Naturopathic Doctor).  In the article, Dr. Ott told the story of a Watchdog Group in Kansas City, Missouri who successfully brought suit against the Missouri Chapter of John D. Rockefeller's fledgling American Medical Assoication (AMA).  The Jackson Medical Society was specifically named in the suit.  A portion of the article reads as follows:
     "In the Fall of 1921, the health of the city was unusually good, but slow for the doctors. So the Jackson Medical Society met and resolved to make an epidemic in the city. According to the minutes of this meeting: 'MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED, THAT A RECOMMENDATION BE MADE BY THE COMMITTEE, TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH, THAT AN EPIDEMIC OF SMALLPOX BE DECLARED IN THE CITY. (Investigation later revealed that there was NO SIGN OF AN EPIDEMIC at the time, in the city, or anywhere in the state or region!)
     'It was moved and seconded that a day be set aside, termed VACCINATION DAY, on which physicians would be stationed at ALL SCHOOLS, clinics, public buildings and hospitals to vaccinate "free of charge". (Vaccinations are never "free". The taxpayers are always forced to pay for every one of the "free" vaccines.)
     The Protective Bureau proved in court that there WAS NO EPIDEMIC before the vaccinations!! The court records show that the Medical Society manufactured vast amounts of posters, fliers, newspaper stories and ads featuring horrific and lurid pictures of diseased children covered with massive smallpox sores and open wounds. Some pictures actually showed children's corpses covered with the same ugly sores. The PANIC-DRIVEN message was clear --- VACCINATE EVERYONE, or face a deadly public disease. There was a "sweeping epidemic" in the city; the disease was "highly contagious" and would "strike anyone who was not vaccinated" was the bill of goods sold! (Does this sound at all familiar today ­94 years later??)
     I know that some people will just label this kind of exposure as conspiratorial.  They are simply unable to conceive that humankind could exploit each other in such a way.  But we must never forget that when money is involved, and the Elite feel threatened, nothing is too inexcusable.
     Doesn't it make you want to take a closer look at the increase in cases of polio from the polio vaccinations? Or the global outbreak of HIV and AIDS?  And what about the soldiers who developed "Gulf War Syndrome" after being injected with an experimental vaccine.  Now we face "designer viruses", and "duplex vaccines" are the answer!
     I didn't mean to get on my soapbox and go so far down the rabbit hole.  But history has shown me that we need to be cautious when buying into warnings on the latest "epidemic".  Will typhoid fever prove to be a real health hazard -- or is it just another orchestrated disease to be used by the powerful and wealthy for social engineering.  You can never be too careful....

IF you would like to read more about Dr. Ott's postulation, and review the evidence for his article, please click here.

Exodus 23:25    "You shall serve the Lord your God, and He will bless your bread and your water, and I will take sickness away from among you."

April 28, 2015

New Terminology: What Is The Meaning Of "Space To Destroy"?

     Let me be clear ... I am merely a simple woman who relies on my spiritual discernment to instruct my thoughts and opinions.  I do not claim to be perfect, but when I hear something more than once on the same day, I tend to see it as an affirmation of something that is, at the least, reasonable to consider.
     Yesterday, on the front page of the Drudge Report was an article titled, "The Odd Tactic of Giving Baltimore Protestors 'Space' to Destroy".  Also, yesterday, I heard a recording from Bastrop, TX, in which a spokesperson at a meeting between the public and officials with the Jade Helm military exercises announced that "space would be given to both protestors and those who wish to destroy".  That just seems so counter-intuitive to the nature of peaceful protest, does it not?  So why would this particular terminology be used?
     I understand the anger and confusion over the mysterious death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray.  There seem to be no concrete explanations as to how his fatal back injury occurred.  It is natural for citizens to demand answers and to express their outrage publicly.
     Similarly, there is much confusion and suspicion over the explanations given for the military exercises known as Jade Helm, especially in Texas.  So, what might the two events have in common, and why would comparable language be used in describing what law enforcement and city/county governments will allow?
     Could it be that once it is established by local law that protestors have been given "space to destroy", any attempt by property owners to defend their possessions or premises will be against the law?  The mayor of Baltimore was quoted as saying, "We work very hard to keep that balance [between free speech and destructive elements], and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate."  Are we to interpret that to mean that some destruction of personal property is permissible in order to guarantee free speech?  How much is too much destruction?  What rights do property owners have to protect their property against public -- but government-condoned -- destruction?
     It would appear that we are once again blurring the line of the original intent of our Founding Fathers and what the new "intellectual" concept of government is becoming.  According to the Foundation for Economic Education, "The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners–even the government."
     Then there is the specific terminology in the Fifth Amendment, which states, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  I know that in the use of private property for the Jade Helm exercises, it is being promoted that land owners approached the government offering the use of their property.  I know that at least in one instance, this is not true.  The property owner was approached by representatives of the government.  So, by declaring that use of the land was consensual, is this a way to avoid reparations in case the "space to destroy" gets out of hand?  In effect, does it do away with the rights of property owners to defend themselves?
     And what of the store owners and shopkeepers and homeowners in Baltimore?  If protestors are given a license and "space" to destroy, how will they be compensated for damages to their property?  What rights do they have to protect their personal property, if the City of Baltimore has established a right and space to destroy?
     In fairness and honesty, I will tell you that the Mayor of Baltimore has attempted to clarify her statement by saying that there was never any intent to suggest that those seeking to incite violence also had the space to operate.  I certainly should hope not!  But we all know that once that impression has been conveyed to the public, there is no taking it back.  You must decide for yourself if it was intentional, or not.
     The bottom line is this:  All Americans should have the opportunity to voice their opinions peaceably, while respecting the laws of the nation and the private property of individuals.  That being said, I suggest that officials carefully consider how their terminology will be interpreted.  I cannot imagine any manner in which "peaceful protest" and "space to destroy" belong in the same sentence!

Isaiah 64:6    "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."


April 1, 2015

It's Only The Beginning

     All the uproar over Indiana and their Religious Freedom Bill shows us that the agenda to force religious Americans to accept same-sex marriage is far from over.  I am confused by the claims of those who oppose the Bill that it would "discriminate" against those who live the gay lifestyle.  Of course, there are any number of non-religious companies who would gladly service same-sex marriage ceremonies.  Why do they insist that the religious owners go against their faith?
     How can one claim discrimination against gays, when the very definition of the word means "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another".  Where is the recognition and understanding for the differences of the religious businesses?
     The backlash against Governor Mike Pence threatens to weaken the Bill in order to make it more "palatable" for those who disapprove of it.  But if we think that the discrimination claim will be limited to only businesses, we are naive.  We can expect further harassment and persecution.
     Think about it.  If business owners are forced to go against their religious beliefs, who is next?  What about churches?  I mean, discrimination is discrimination, right?  Why not file suit against churches and pastors who refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies?  Currently, an argument can be made that churches are in a special class of their own; religious organizations protected by the Constitution and their tax-exempt status.
     But what if that tax-exempt status could be withdrawn on the basis of discrimination against same-sex couples?  Then they become de-facto businesses who are subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws against gays -- which means they are vulnerable to lawsuits and fines, just like any other business.
     But let's not stop there.  Religious universities will certainly be targeted, both as to their non-profit status, and then for fines if they refuse to provide benefits for same-sex spouses, for example.  Can you see how easy it will be to force religious universities to accept the homosexual agenda by blackmailing them through their financial achilles heel?  By accepting non-profit or tax-exempt statuses, both churches and universities have exposed their weak spots to exploitation by anti-faith groups.
     The next logical step would be to go after private religious elementary and high schools.  The battle has already been half won in the states who have forced public schools to teach about same-sex marriage in those states who have approved it by law.  What makes us think they will stop at public schools?  Why should private schools be allowed to “discriminate” against same-sex couples by exempting children from learning about them? Why should homeschooled children be given state-credentialed status without being indoctrinated in the decency of homosexual behavior, all in the name of non-discrimination?
     By now, you should see the hand-writing on the wall, and the plan should be apparent.  Not until people of faith are forced to accept homosexuality and same-sex marriage as the norm, will the enemies of Biblical faith be satisfied.  Until then, they will continue to attack us through our ability to make a living; through our churches; and through the education of our children.
     Right now, companies like Apple are attempting to smear Indiana and cost them billions in commerce.  In fact, Apple CEO Tim Cook tweeted, "There's something very dangerous happening across the country ... Apple is open to everyone.   We are deeply disappointed in Indiana's new law, and calling on Arkansas to veto a similar bill ... Around the world we strive to treat every customer the same -- regardless of where they come from, how they worship, or who they love."  Of course, he neglects to mention that Apple does business with countries such as Uganda, Nigeria, Qatar, and Saudia Arabia, who execute their citizens for being gay.  But such is the hypocrisy of the Godless and those who ignore God's Word.
     But make no mistake ... the backlash against Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill is a forecast of what we can expect from those who wish to eradicate faith in our culture.  The question is this:  Will you stand your ground and defend your faith; even if it means losing everything?  You better decide now, because they won't stop until you are forced to make that decision.  That is the goal and the game plan -- get ready!

Thanks to Ben Shapiro at Breitbart.com for his excellent observation on this issue.

James 5:11   "Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast."

February 9, 2015

The Vaccine Debate and The Hegelian Dialectic

     It seems that the Vaccine Debate has become the next Hegelian Dialectic being forced upon us.  I have talked about this "Marxist process of change" before, but in case you are not familiar with this term, let me explain it.  Let's say those in power want to accomplish some goal; we'll call it A, but they know that the populace would never go for it.  So they create scenario B that drives the public into a panic.  They then have solution C (which is actually A) waiting in the wings to help solve B.  But what the populace doesn't realize is this: they've been played.  The whole sequence of events was staged and planned to achieve the original goal.
     Confused?  Let me give you a little demonstration of this theory ... say some malevolent government wanted to institute martial law, but the people of the nation are generally lovers of freedom, and the officials know the people will not easily surrender their rights.  So agents within the government create a situation (say something like Ferguson, Missouri), that spills over into nationwide violence and chaos.  Widespread looting occurs, cities burn, innocent citizens are targeted by angry mobs, and the nation's economy becomes seriously affected.  Those same freedom-loving citizens start to think that perhaps a temporary period of martial law is needed to get things back to normal.  They beg the government to do something, anything, to solve the problem... and guess what?  The original goal is achieved; but it ain't temporary!

     Now carry that premise over into the curiously revived debate on Vaccines.  I say "curiously" because, doesn't it seem like this issue came out of nowhere?  Like overnight?  There has been an ongoing discussion and controversy over vaccines for quite some time.  Frankly, it is my impression that doctors are divided over the necessity of so many vaccines on the market today.  Plus I am not convinced that there is not a link between childhood vaccines and autism.
     According to the Autism Science Foundation,  "In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network reported that approximately 1 in 68 children in the United States has an Autism Spectrum Disorder. This new estimate is roughly 30 percent higher than previous estimates reported in 2012, of 1 in 88 children. In the 1980’s autism prevalence was reported as 1 in 10,000. In the nineties, prevalence was 1 in 2500 and later 1 in 1000."  Now this organization is careful to say that a decade ago, research seemed to show that vaccines were a likely cause of autism, but they have changed their stance to reflect that recent research has discounted that theory.
     Then there is The Autism Society, which says "There is no known single cause for autism spectrum disorder, but it is generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in brain structure or function... Research indicates other factors besides the genetic component are contributing to the rise in increasing occurrence of autism – for example, environmental toxins (e.g., heavy metals such as mercury), which are more prevalent than in the past."
     Now, I am not a doctor nor a scientist; and I have no way to prove which of the above theories is the correct one.  But I cannot dismiss the countless stories of normal, healthy infants suddenly developing autism after receiving a conglomeration of vaccines during a well-child checkup.  I have heard too many stories like this one:  My neighbor, and good friend, experienced a frightening situation when her infant son went into a seizure-like state after receiving a vaccine shot.  I can understand why she, like many mothers I know, do not get their children vaccinated.  And there lies "the rub" for our government, and why there is a need for the latest Hegelian strategy.
     You see, I don't want to engage in a conversation about the pros and cons of vaccinations -- although that is a worthy discussion to have.  (Please read this well-documented report on measles in the pre-vaccination era versus today.)  No, I'm more concerned in what that discussion seems to be leading towards.  There is a near hysteria over the recent measles outbreak in California, with parents concerned that unvaccinated children who get the measles could spread the virus exponentially, causing an epidemic of children who might "suffer the serious complications of measles, such as deafness and brain damage or even death" (as one CNN news report disclosed).
      As the alarm over the 155 cases of measles in 16 states (which started at Disneyland in December) is trending as a major "measles outbreak", I am more alarmed over what I see as a collaboration between the media and government to hint at "forced" vaccinations.  When you have Megan Kelly, one of the out-front news anchors of Fox News saying she "is not opposed to Big Brother getting involved when it comes to child vaccinations", I think that is a deliberate and planned warning to the American people.
     First of all, explain to me why 155 cases in about 2 months is cause for such hand-wringing?  The Center for Disease Control, itself, reported 27,672 measles cases reported in 1990, and 75,290 reported cases in 1971.  True, they acknowledged that failure to vaccinate children at the appropriate age was the major factor in these numbers; but they also related that there was an increase of measles in Central and South American countries, and that black and Hispanic children are less likely to be age-appropriately vaccinated than are white children.
     So, it seems to me that it's not really the number of measles cases that is the cause for all the hysteria; could perhaps the recent measles cases just be a convenient excuse to push the vaccine agenda?  Let's see, what recent events have occurred in our country that would have introduced a large population of unvaccinated children of Hispanic origin into the midst of our otherwise healthy population?  Could there be any connection between our open, porous borders and the sudden push for vaccinations for all children?
     And if you want to follow that trail down the rabbit hole, you better screw on your tin foil hat ... because I have some very important questions that everyone must answer for themselves.  Do you trust the CDC and do you trust all the additives in today's vaccines?  Do you believe that the Elite of the world are interested in population control?  If so, why, and how could they implement a widespread reduction of the world's population?  Is there any connection between the growing GMO food supply and the combinations of vaccines that children now receive?  And, finally, do you think the U.S. government should mandate vaccinations for all children?  Consider Megan Kelly's response (whom I would certainly include in the ranks of the Elite) when asked if she opposed mandatory vaccinations for children.  She clearly stated her objective:  "No".
     Now, let's go back to the question I asked at the beginning of this essay ... Doesn't it seem like the heated debate on this issue came out of nowhere?  Is it possible that mandatory vaccinations (for whatever reason -- good or bad) are the goal?  And in order to sell the American people on yet another loss of the freedom to live their lives as they choose, a "false measles epidemic" is incited to cause widespread panic and a demand from frantic parents to protect their children from those immoral parents who choose not to vaccinate?
     I know it all sounds crazy and Machiavellian; and it is difficult to think that anyone could engineer such devious plans for the world's population.  But the Haves will use any means necessary to retain control over the Have Nots.  It's just too bad that we have to question the motives behind everything these days.

Galatians 4:17:   "They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them."

January 29, 2015

Part 2: Smart Grid, Off-Grid, and Agenda 21

     Yesterday, I promised to take you further into the conspiracies of the Elite ... at least what I think we should consider to be a possibility.  For awhile now, the world has wondered what was up with China's "Ghost Cities".  And you may think this is old news, but that question has never been answered, and I believe it is important to keep it in the spotlight.  Again, I'd like to thank the website, Inquisitr, for doing an excellent job in connecting the dots in this quandary.
     Allegedly, these "Ghost Cities" are said to be "part of the sustainable development plans outlined in the United Nations’ Agenda 21 initiative."  Remember, as I pointed out yesterday, sustainable living is OK to participate in, as long as it is controlled by the Government or the Elite.  How dare you think that you can partake of this lifestyle through your own initiative!
     So, what's the plan for these cities in China that boast energy conscious buildings, shops, and apartments, yet remain unoccupied and empty?  First, let's establish some facts, as stated by Inquisitr:  The United Nations’ Agenda 21 program is a voluntary, non-binding action plan which is allegedly focused solely on sustainable development. Adopted by 178 countries in 1992, the plan is based upon a program to abolish poverty and protect “fragile environments” by “properly” managing cities. America is a “signatory” country to Agenda 21. Since the plan is a non-binding statement and not a treaty, a vote on the initiative was not necessary. In the United States, more than 500 large and moderate-sized cities are members of an international sustainability organization that reportedly supports the implementation of Agenda 21.
     Now, back to China's empty "sustainable" cities.... The Agenda 21 China plan reportedly included measures to move “tens of millions” of citizens away from rural areas and into brand spanking new cities designed in a sustainable manner.  So what is the link between Warren Buffet, his Energy Plan to control our Energy Grid, and his attempt to capitalize on solar and wind power?  As far back as 2013, Dave Hodges, of The Common Sense Show, seemed to think there was a huge connection.
     He pointed out that Former Secretary of the US Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson appeared to be championing the Agenda 21 relocation going on in China.  “The country’s economy is heading in the right direction. This is more important than achieving short-term growth,” Paulson said of the eco-cities and urban growth in China. McKinsey and Company Global Managing Director Dominic Barton also heralded the changes going on in China. “The good news is that there is an underlying force of growth and that’s urbanization. What we’re basically seeing is more than 250,000 people moving from rural areas to cities every week,” Barton said.
    So, now consider this scenario .... if a country could influence (or enforce) the relocation of its populations to the cities, and away from rural living, couldn't they better control not only their energy use, but the population, itself?  So, doesn't it sound like they are equating urban living with economic growth?  Furthermore, does it stand to reason that if states like Texas, Florida and North Carolina (which happen to be inhabited by some of the most freedom-loving Americans) can restrict the off-grid lifestyle and force every home to be connected to the Energy Grid, that it is a step towards discouraging rural living and independence?  Wouldn't that make it easier to control the American population?
     You may think that I am stretching things a bit ... that "control" is not the issue; that it's only about "sustaining" and "conserving" energy.  But look behind the curtain, and I think you will see something else; something far more sinister that will ultimately lead to the loss of our personal property and our right to choose how we live our lives.  Is it pertinent to ask the question, "As goes China's "Ghost Cities", so goes America's cities, townships, and urban areas?"

Galatians 4:17   "They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them."

January 28, 2015

Off-Grid vs Smart Grid; Apparently, There Can Be Only One Winner

     Have you ever stopped to think about the paradox in the national conversation over Energy Consumption?  On the one hand you have Energy Magnates like Warren Buffet, whose Northern Powergrid Holdings Co. in the U.K., is working with Siemens AG (SIE) to test a so-called smart grid that has the ability to control when consumer appliances will be used in the home.  Don't believe me? It's all there in Bloomberg Business Week.
     I've tried to warn people that the new Smart Grid meters will work with the new Energy Star appliances to eventually monitor and regulate how much energy you use in your home.  Of course I got the cynical looks ... there she goes again with her crazy conspiracy theories.
     But here's how it works, and how they sell it:  the smart meters are simply gathering information on your energy usage and helping you to decide the best way to conserve.  Because we all know that the planet is in crisis and we need to discover new ways to curb our gluttonous consumption, right?  But, let's put it in plain English ... the smart meters are collecting data on our energy usage so they can test, and at some point in the near future, implement “a so-called smart grid that has the ability to control when consumer appliances will be used in the home.”
     If you already have a smart meter on your home, you may be enjoying the convenience of the utility company telling you the optimum times to use power; (that information comes from all the data collection, don't you know).  And if you don't have a smart meter yet ... don't worry, you soon will.  And I would be willing to bet that you have one and don't even know it.  Many friends swore to me that they didn't have one, but on closer inspection, discovered that one had been installed without their knowledge or consent.  And there are some people that still don't see the problem ... "Everything is being automated.  It just makes it easier for the utility company to read the meter from a satellite."  That's right; just keep drinking the koolaid.
     But would it surprise you to know that Bloomberg reports that "Buffett’s U.K.-based system goes a step further. It gives people a choice, allowing them to either use appliances themselves at optimum times, or to let the system decide that for them."  It's only one more step until that choice is no longer your own, but will be made by the utility.  Of course, this could have nothing to do with the fact that Warren Buffet has invested $15 billion in wind and solar power in the U.S. , and he's ready to double that amount ... could it?
     Think about it ... every time you turn on a light, set your thermostat to make your home a little cooler in the summer, or even flush the toilet, "they" are monitoring your usage.  By the way, did you know that talking thermostats exist, now?  I'm sure that some consumers welcome them and love being part of the "new trend".  But think of it this way (as outlined by Truthstream Media) .. "Combined with the smart grid however, it comes off more like the super computer HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey. You go to turn on your air conditioner and hear a calm voice say, “I’m afraid I can’t let you do that, Dave…".  Does that make you have second thoughts?  It should.
     The website, Inquisitr, reports that Texas and Florida are actively pursuing restriction of the off-grid, or "sustainable" lifestyle; going so far as to make it illegal.  Apparently, if you disconnect from the Smart Grid and try to live economically, simply, and relying on nature, you are defeating the Elite's plan.  So, let me get this straight ... if you use solar power, cook off a camp stove, and collect rain water, it is not seen as saving earth from the planet-destroying energy plants, but you are now viewed as a lawbreaker.
     But here's the opposite side of the coin.  It's supposed to be all about using natural resources and saving the planet, right?  But try going Off-grid and see how "the powers that be" like that!
     I'm trying to wrap my head around this whole paradox .... Warren Buffet and his billionaire friends are making billions off energy users by forcing their Smart Grid on us.  In Florida, it has been mandated that all homes must be connected to an energy grid.  Inquisitr revealed that North Carolina has not made it illegal yet to be off-grid, but "citizens can be evicted if they do not consume electricity, citing fears about candle fires." REALLY?!?
     But think about this, Buffet and his greedy cohorts also want to capture the monopoly on solar and wind power, too.  OK, now I get it!  It's really all about making money!!!  They can't have you using the wind and sun and rain that God made for us free of charge!  So, they not only want to control your use of electricity, they also want to restrict and control your use of our natural resources ... and they want to charge you in both instances! They get us coming and going; and it's all manipulated and controlled and about limiting our free choice.
     Tune in tomorrow, when I take this controversy one step further ... but you better tighten down your tin foil hats!  I will be connecting some dots that you haven't even considered!

Psalm 24:1   "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,"


January 16, 2015

The Obsolete Man

     The title of this blog post is taken from a famous episode of The Twilight Zone; that strange TV series of the early 60s that showcased the genius of its host, producer, and writer, Rod Serling.  As so often, with TVs and Movies, we can see predictions of the future, as if the producers know something that we don't, and are surreptitiously either warning us, or gloating, over their superior knowledge.
     I think you will find this particular episode of the anthology series rather interesting. As Mr. Serling introduces the opening scenes of the show, he describes a feeble little man (Mr. Wordsworth) standing before a tribunal of the State.  As the Narrator, Serling announces, You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future; not a future that will be, but one that might be. (Camera pans to Narrator) This is not a new world: It is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advancements, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one of the super states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: Logic is an enemy, and truth is a menace. (Camera switches to the convicted man) This is Mr. Romney Wordsworth, in his last forty-eight hours on Earth. He's a citizen of the State, but will soon have to be eliminated, because he's built out of flesh and because he has a mind. Mr. Romney Wordsworth, who will draw his last breaths in the Twilight Zone.
     It appears that Mr. Wordsworth has been declared obsolete because the State has outlawed books.  Therefore, his job as a librarian, is no longer needed.  However, as his name declares, this librarian still sees worth in words, and he will not give up his occupation easily.  But notice the response of the Chancellor of the State:  Since there are no more books, Mr.Wordsworth, there are no more libraries, and, of course, as it follows, there is very little call for the services of a librarian. Case in point: A minister. A minister would tell us that his function is that of preaching the word of God. And since it follows that since The State has proven that there is no God, that would make the function of a minister quite academic as well....
     The good Mr. Wordsworth then loudly proclaims that THERE IS A GOD!  To which the State angrily replies that they have declared there is NO GOD, and therefore his opinion, as well as he, himself, are obsolete.  Mr. Wordsworth responds by saying, "I don't care!  I am a human being!  I exist ... and if I speak one thought aloud, that thought lives, even after I'm shoveled into my grave.
     The State shouts back, DELUSIONS! The Bible, poetry, essays, all kinds, all of it are opiate to make you think you have a strength, when you have no strength at all!!!  After some further derision of Wordsworth's delusions of the human state, the Chancellor and his Board of the State passes judgment on the humble little man.  Mr. Wordsworth is pronounced obsolete and he is to die, in a manner of his choice, in the next 48 hours.  But he has another plan....
     He asks to be able to choose his own method of death, and that it take place in his apartment.  This is rather unorthodox, but the request is granted, and he invites the Chancellor to meet with him just prior to the carrying out of the sentence.  The Chancellor accepts and finds the little man surrounded by the books he loves so much, and which the Chancellor abhors.  A discussion ensues, whereby the Librarian and the Chancellor discuss the lessons learned from the State under Hitler and Stalin; how they dealt with people they deemed obsolete and undesirable.  The Chancellor gloats, But their error was not one of excess it was simply not going far enough! Too many undesirables left around, and undesirables eventually create a corp of resistance. Old people for example, clutch at the past and won't accept the new. The sick, the maimed, the deformed, they fasten onto the healthy body and damage it. So WE eliminate them! And people like yourself, they can perform no useful function for The State, so...we put an end to them.
     The little Librarian lets the Chancellor rant about how proud he is of the methods they use to eliminate useless people and how proud he is that it is televised so that the rest of the citizenry can see it is useless to fight the State.  Then the little Librarian reveals his secret plan ... he had decided to die by a bomb exploding in his apartment.  The Chancellor is then horrified to find that the door has been locked and he cannot escape; apparently he will suffer death along with the Librarian.  He then calmly asks the Chancellor how he plans on spending his last moments before dying?  As for himself, the Librarian, sits down in a chair and begins to read from this beloved Bible:  The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want .... Defend me from them that rise up against me. Deliver me from the workers of iniquity and save me from the bloody men. For lo, they lie in wait for my soul... The fool that said in his heart"There is no God". The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek God...  (There are tears in his eyes).
     By this time, the Chancellor is panicking, and screaming, In the Name of God, let me out!  In the last seconds before the bomb goes off killing the Librarian, he tells the Chancellor, Yes, in the name of God, I will let you out.  The next scene is of the Librarian sitting calmly in his chair, clutching his Bible, as the Chancellor cowers in fear under the stairs.  The bomb explodes and is televised across the country.
     The next image is of the Chancellor entering the Court Room of the State, where the crowd is chanting, Obsolete!  Obsolete!  He is pronounced guilty of disgracing the State, being a coward, and therefore serving no function.  He is dragged, whimpering from the room.  We next see Serling, as the Narrator, pronouncing, The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete, but so is the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under "M" for mankind—in the Twilight Zone.

     This particular episode originally aired in 1961.  That's over a half century ago, and yet in God's timeline, it is barely a blink of His eye.  Do you not think that He knows the schemes of men and the spirit of Satan that lives in the wicked?  And men like Rod Serling must have been given great discernment to try to warn us of the days to come.  The themes that included the totalitarianism of the State, their efforts at euthanasia, collectivism, and the destruction of God and religion in society were way ahead of their times.  I invite you to watch the full episode on Youtube, and to read the entire manuscript.  I think you will find that we are seeing the culmination of Evil's ongoing plans to destroy the relationship between God and man.  It is worth your consideration, and still gives ample warning, these 53 years later.  Enjoy!

2 Corinthians 2:16-17   "To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ."

November 24, 2014

What's Happened To The Rule Of Law?

     It is just my opinion, but I am willing to speculate that one of the primary reasons this country has been a beacon for immigrants in the nearly two-and-a-half centuries of our existence is that we have represented a fairly consistent pattern of restricting the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
     There ... I just gave you the definition of "the Rule of Law".  History shows that this land was a magnet for people who dreamed of escaping tyranny -- from the Pilgrims, who were escaping political and religious persecution, (as well as imprisonment), for charges of treason against the Crown; to South Africans who longed to break free of the apartheid injustice of a ruling party who, with extreme intent, demolished anything that got in the way of its legal and political agenda.
     It is also my opinion that, from the beginning of time, societies and civilizations have succeeded because people recognized the need for a moral and legal set of rules by which to live.  They have succeeded economically, socially and politically when they have respected the authority and influence of law; law which is described as "a system of rules which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior." (Wikipedia).
     But that success and harmony only continues to exist when laws, (or constraints on behavior), are equally observed by the populace and the governing officials.  Why do you think that we have had tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of illegal immigrants flock to our southern border in the last year or so?  They are escaping the tyrannical rule of corrupt politicians and dictators, the uncontrolled dominance of drug cartels, and the unrelenting violence of civil wars within their own countries --- all the result of a lack of the Rule of Law.
     In other words, when the government of a nation decides that the instituted laws of that nation no longer apply to them, then there is not only the threat of injustice to the citizens, but a complete breakdown of their individual security, economic stability, and personal freedoms.
     When any government body, or individual, decides that they can arbitrarily ignore the established laws, and exercise power at their will, then the Rule of Law no longer exists.  In effect, laws are a check (or curb) on that autocratic power.  When they are breached, the freedom we have known under the law, becomes insubstantial.  There is a profound deterioration of individual rights, in the wake of a growing power of the State.  That makes liberty-lovers a little nervous.
     Here in the United States, it has been accepted that all government officers, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. It has also been understood that these oaths affirm that the Rule of Law is superior to the rule of any human leader.  But when law-makers determine that they are no longer subjects of the law, then chaos ensues.
     We have seen that with the Fast and Furious debacle, the imminent "amnesty" issue, and I fear that we will see it set forth from the Ferguson, Missouri incident, as well.  To be sure, we have a problem with the Rule of Law being appropriately honored and administered in this nation.
     But let me drop a little bug in your ear ... our Rule of Law is not only being diminished from within our own country's framework, and by our own governing leaders, but could all this "lawlessness" soon come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations?  Let me explain ...
     Did you know that International Leaders from around the world convened about a year ago for what was called "the Bangkok Dialogue on the Rule of Law"?  Apparently, the UN has Millennium Development Goals, and the Rule of Law is a hot topic towards achieving those goals.  In fact, at the heart of the United Nations’ agenda is its role as the guardian of international legal frameworks.  That means that they, ideally, want to determine what our Rule of Law should be.
     Keeping that in mind, here is the UN's definition of the Rule of Law:  the rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which “all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly broadcasted, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights, norms and standards”.
     Since when has America ever considered herself as following "standards or norms", as dictated by other entities?  Isn't that exactly why immigrants are streaming to our shores?  Never mind that our nation's Rule of Law was founded on Christian-Judeo principles of a "Higher Law" than man's laws; that our individual rights and liberties were established by our Creator, and are not subject to the whims of a  human ruler.  When that principle is forgotten, we are left with this reality:  "Behind every legal order there is always a god, be it God Himself or those who have control over the state machinery." (RJ Rushdoony, American philosopher, historian and theologian).
     Ultimately, we are in danger of losing our unique Rule of Law in this country.  We have abandoned the Source of our Liberties, and forgotten that God's Higher Laws are above the laws of any man.  It's simple, really ... we, as the people of our nation, along with those we have chosen to protect our Rule of Law, must decide what kind of authority we want as the source of power over us.  Do we want the authority of God-instituted laws; the control of an "international body", such as the UN, to mold us to an acceptable standard; or do we want the authority of a mere human ruler, who seeks his own power, instead of glorifying God's laws?
     I think we've taken our unique Rule of Law for granted too long, and assumed it would always exist.  But when men put their laws above God's; and seek their will, instead of His, then the legality of laws don't really matter -- only the end results that uphold a man's power and authority.  That's when we are in danger of replacing laws with illegality, and we cease to exist as the land of the free.  How much longer before our Rule of Law vanishes altogether?

Jeremiah 10:23    "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps."

October 30, 2014

NYC Ebola Patient: What's Wrong With This Picture?

     OK, how about a little conspiracy theory to start our day?  We've all heard the news reports about Dr. Craig Spencer, the physician from Doctors Without Borders, who became symptomatic with Ebola after returning to the U.S. --- and holds the distinction of being the first Ebola patient in New York City.  He is currently listed in "serious, but stable" condition.
     Dr. Spencer arrived back in the U.S., after treating Ebola patients in Guinea, West Africa.  He reportedly passed all the screening tests at John F. Kennedy Airport, and then proceeded to enjoy life in New York City.  He visited a local park, ate at The Meatball Shop restaurant, stopped by a coffee shop, found time to take a 3-mile long jog through another park, take a taxi to a bowling alley, and ride 3 different subway trains -- all within a week of returning stateside and coming down with a 103F fever and Ebola.
      Does anyone else think something about this smells fishy?  Naturally, the people of New York are a little unnerved; especially the neighborhoods in which he visited.  But it was one Twitter post that caught my attention ... "He took the subway from Harlem to Brooklyn?!?! YOU LITERALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM TO DO THAT".
    Is it irresponsible of me to wonder why a doctor, who has seen the ravages of Ebola, and knows how rapidly it can spread, would seem to be so nonchalant about taking the necessary steps to make sure he was virus-free before potentially exposing a metropolis like NYC to this deadly disease?  Wouldn't it have been rational for him to take a few days to make sure he showed no symptoms?  After all, there is supposedly a 21-day incubation period.  Dr. Spencer hardly allowed enough time to see if he would begin showing symptoms, before exposing a nice chunk of NYC to the virus.
    Yeah, yeah, he says he wasn't feeling bad, just "fatigued".  But he sure managed to cover a lot of miles and visit a lot of places in three days for someone who was "so tired."  I'm just saying'... If I didn't know better, I would think this looked like an attempt to expose as many people as possible to the disease ... just in case he did come down with it.  Just think about all the potential victims who rode the three different subways; or all the people in the bowling alley, restaurant and coffee shop.  And how many people rode in the same cab he took, or came into contact with him during his hike in the park?  (OK, I'll admit I've got my tin foil hat on!)
     But let me share this little bit of news with you, as well. There's a YouTube video showing a 16-year-old neighbor of Dr. Spencer's being interviewed outside the apartment building in which they both live.  She comments on how nice he is, his dedication to his work with Doctors Without Borders, and she hasn't seen him in a few weeks.  But when (allegedly) shown a picture of Dr. Spencer by one of the reporters, she screws up her face, recoils for an instant, and says, "No, no.  That's not him."
    So what's the truth here?  Is this an Ebola false-flag event, inspired to cause fear?  Or do we have an actor playing Dr. Spencer in order to actually spread the disease?  Is the girl even his neighbor, or is she just another subterfuge to keep us off our guard?  Do any of these unsubstantiated rumors have anything to do with the fact that the U.S. government owns a patent on Ebola?  Doesn't it make just a little bit of sense that the good ol' Hegelian Dialect could be in play here?   You know -- create the problem so that your pre-determined solution can be applied to solving the problem.   An article on Western Journalism lays all out for you:  "Uncle Sam owns the patent on Ebola, but they also own the rights to all variations on Ebola, with the rights to all Ebola research. The official owner of this Ebola patent is: The Government of the US as Represented by the Secretary of the Dept. of Health. Essentially, it is a patent issued by The United States government to The United States government."
     How do you patent something that is supposed to be naturally occurring?  But what if it isn't?  Has it been altered in some way?  And what if the disease mutates so fast, that the entire population becomes exposed and the government has to accelerate the development of a vaccine for the masses? Nice way to make a few bucks, wouldn't you say -- let alone subject the world's population to possible cancer-causing agents?  (Remember that the World's Elite are looking for ways to reduce the earth's population, and that the CDC has admitted to the possibility that 10-30 million polio vaccines may have been contaminated).
     I really must admit that I wish my mind didn't turn towards these crazy scenarios.  I don't want to believe that man could be that devious or that greedy.  But then I realize how evil these times are, and that Satan can tempt man with evil schemes and plans.  I'd like to think that maybe I'm just too skeptical.  But tell me ... what has there been to generate any faith in our current system?  And now there is the whole confusing mess of a nurse who refuses to stay in quarantine!  I am just thankful that the devil's time is short, and my Lord is coming near.  I'm so weary of all this doubt and mistrust!

Psalm 118:8    "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man."


August 4, 2014

Detention Center Contradicts Budget Request

     The ongoing battle between Congress and the President over the $3.7 billion in supplemental budget appropriations for the border crisis (the so-called "Border Bill") has taken on an ironic quality in the last few days.  At the end of last week, President Obama hinted that he was getting frustrated at the lack of action by Congress, stating, "I'm going to have to act alone; we've run out of money..."
     Excuse me, Sir, but can you answer a simple question for me?  If we have run out of money, can you explain the elaborate detention center for immigrant women and children, located in Karnes City, Texas?  As reported by KXAN-TV, out of San Antonio, this 29-acre facility that used to house illegal male immigrants that were caught and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has now received an expensive makeover for its new purpose.
     ICE field officers gave a tour to media representatives and proudly showed off the new detention center: “I am pretty sure you will agree this is nothing like we have seen before.”  I should say!  The media were shown newly painted rooms that catered to children, with cartoon characters painted on the walls, and all kinds of games to entertain them.  KXAN also reported that "Other amenities include recreational fields, a library, internet access, and a cafeteria which will serve three all-you-can-eat meals a day. Certified teachers will also be on site to provide year-round education and small jobs will also be available paying $3 a day for four hours of work."
     But that's not all!  Cable television is available, along with recreation activities that include exercise equipment, a soccer field, basketball court, and volleyball court.  A computer lab allows some internet access and email services but restricts social media.  (Why stop there?  If the American tax-payer is footing this bill, why not go all the way?)
     And it is not just free housing and upscale amenities that these illegal immigrants will receive. Pro bono immigration attorney services will be available on-site for those seeking asylum , and they will have an opportunity to see an immigration judge.  Apparently the immigration system does not guarantee the right to free and legal counsel, so attorneys are being solicited to " to see that the rights of the children are not violated.".  Please correct me, if I am wrong, but aren't these "rights" that pertain to legal citizens?   I am all for treating these unfortunate women and children with compassion and human kindness, but to infer legal "rights" on them because of an emotional response is not only un-Constitutional, but will completely bankrupt this country.
     Oh, I forgot to mention that the "Detention Center" will now be referred to as a "Resident Center"; Detainees are known as Residents, and Guards are called Resident Advisors.  It is hard to understand this kind of "soft-sell" mentality, when city governments in Florida and California are passing ordinances that would make being "homelessness" a crime.  SHTFPlan reports that a whistleblower within the Los Angeles Department of Health Services has blown the lid off a plan "to round up and forcibly house homeless citizens in detention facilities", which the Department prefers to call "Low-cost housing facilities".  Will these "residents" receive cable TV and all-you-can-eat meals, plus free attorney privileges?  Somehow, I doubt it!
     So back to my original question ... How can we be "out of money", yet be spending the crazy amounts of money necessary to completely overhaul a 29-acre facility that will ultimately house over 530 well-cared for illegal immigrants?  And I would be willing to bet that it is not the only facility of this nature and quality that will be available to illegal "residents".
     There are those who will tell me that the Bible says we are not to "oppress the sojourner or the poor".  Yes, it does.  But one must admit that it is not often easy to apply Scripture to a specific public policy issue, such as the humanitarian crisis we are currently faced with.  First of all, the correct Hebrew understanding of "sojourn" is a temporary stay.  That being said, the Israelites were to welcome such "sojourners".  But there are passages in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 16, for instance) that make it clear that foreign residents were to comply with Israelite laws, such as Sabbath observance, etc.
     But I digress ... perhaps I will undertake a separate post on the Biblical perspective of our immigration policy another day.  For now, I am simply trying to understand where the money is coming from to build these upscale detention centers.  Are they for "temporary stays"?  Or is this simply the first stop towards full-blown amnesty?  And what is the $3.7 billion appropriation destined for?  To beef up border security .... or to build more extravagant housing for non-citizens?  As a Christian, I know that the truly unfortunate should be cared for, but the duplicity that has led to this crisis does not generate an easy answer.  When you factor in the unknown number of those crossing the border who wish to do us harm WITH the unknown cost of feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care for hundreds of thousands, then it is mind-boggling.  Count it all as one more distraction by the Enemy to keep our focus off preparing for the return of Yeshua.  We must look upon Him for our deliverance from this out-of-control world.

Ephesians 4:31-32   "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."