I Beg To Differ

     On Wednesday, the First Lady altered our national history.  Is she just mis-informed, or was this a deliberate political move?  I'll let you draw your own conclusions.  But while speaking to 50 newly naturalized American citizens in Washington, D.C., she told them this:  “It’s amazing that just a few feet from here where I’m standing are the signatures of the 56 Founders who put their names on a Declaration that changed the course of history,” she said, referring to the Declaration of Independence. “And like the 50 of you, none of them were born American – they became American.”
     Umm, I respectfully disagree.  Let's have a little history lesson, shall we?  The "Founders" to which she is referring are known more politely as our Founding Fathers.  They embodied a wide range of service to our country.  The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were political leaders and statesmen who participated in the American Revolution by signing the United States Declaration of Independence, taking part in the American Revolutionary War, and establishing the United States Constitution.
     Furthermore, the phrase "Founding Fathers," applied to "an American statesman of the Revolutionary period, especially a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787", and has been in use since at least 1894.  A more generalized use of "founding fathers" has been in place since at least 1886.  But none less than our government's archives list the birthplaces of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, and only 7 were not native Americans.
     I can hear the naysayers proclaiming that the United States of America did not come into existence until July 4, 1776, when the thirteen British colonies declared their independence from Great Britain. Therefore, our Founding Fathers considered themselves British citizens, not Americans.  I strongly disagree.
     While they might have been subjects of the British empire, due to the colonization practices of Great Britain, their nationality was specifically, and genuinely, American.  Just as the citizens of the British colony West Indies, saw themselves as West Indians; and citizens of the colony of Australia, saw themselves as Australian; the citizens of the North American colonies saw themselves as Americans.  Indeed, the term "America" had been applied to this land for at least a couple of centuries before the Declaration of Independence.

     Note this map, which is the first one to use the name "America", and which is displayed in the U.S. Library of Congress.  It was created by German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller in 1507, and is the first document to show a separate Western Hemisphere and label the Pacific Ocean as its own body of water.  Before he drew the document, Waldseemüller had pored over notes from explorers Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci, as well as other unknown Portuguese and Spanish sources.  It is true that the German cartographer did not always use the name "America" in subsequent maps.  But the evidence is there that as far as geography was concerned, America existed before it was a British colony.
     But at the heart of my disagreement with the First Lady is the question of whether or not the Founding Fathers were naturally Americans.  Just read their words yourselves:

•  "The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves" -- George Washington
•  "The cement of this union is the heart-blood of every American."  -- Thomas Jefferson
•  "Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all! By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall."  -- John Dickinson, Delegate to the Continental Congress

    They obviously identified themselves as Americans! And overwhelmingly, they were born in America, which would make them Americans by virtue of their birthplace.  But I honestly believe that being an American is more than being born in this particular country.  That has been proven by our long, and proud, history of immigrants coming to our shores, seeking to be Americans.  "American" is a concept, a state of mind, it's a condition of the heart.  On that we can agree.
     But I draw the line when she tries to portray the Founding Fathers as “Americans-by-choice”, just like the newly declared citizens.  “Immigration is at the heart of how we developed as a nation,” she said.  There's just one tiny fact she has misrepresented, the Founding Fathers did not immigrate from a foreign nation.  Many times they were the second and third generation of families born into the land.  And she is ignoring the fact that the 50 new Americans she stood before had become legal citizens, making them true Americans-by-choice.
     I will not argue that immigration has been a hallmark of this country and our American heritage has benefitted from the infusion of those who seek to embrace our spirit.  But to distort the history of our Founding Fathers cannot stand unchallenged.  I will leave it to a 20th Century American to explain what was at the heart of those American Founding Fathers and everyone who proudly claims the title:
     "When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea.  He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect ... America is much more than a geographical fact.  It is a political and moral fact - the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality."  -- Adlai Stevenson

Proverbs 22:1-2   "A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold. The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all."

Signs and Symbols We Ignore At Our Own Peril

     For those of you who are accustomed to wearing a tin foil hat, well, you might want to screw it on extra tight today.  In the shadows of my mind, I have been trying to figure out what the Powers of Darkness are trying to show us in recent world and cultural events.  I am not one to believe in happenstance or coincidence; my Biblical worldview supersedes "accidents in the universe."
     So when God tells me in Amos 3:7 that He "will do nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets", I am confident in that promise.  After all, He has always warned the world of coming judgments.  He warned Noah before the Flood; He warned Abraham and Lot before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; He warned Joseph of the 7-year famine, Moses of the 10 plagues in Egypt, and His chosen people of their coming captivities.  And ultimately, Jesus warns us of what the Last Days will be like.
     I also happen to believe, as taught by Bible scholars, that God, in His righteous character, demands the same standard from Satan.  If He has given the Devil power over this earth until His Son comes to wage the final judgment, then the Devil must follow the same rules -- he can do nothing without revealing His secrets to the world.  And that brings me to my theme for the day.
     Through his servants, the Powerful Elite, Satan and his occult have an allegiance to their symbols of power that they use to show they are in control of this earth.  They use them to hint at their plans, and unfortunately, we have become quite seduced by these occult signs and symbols.  In fact, I am going to show you perhaps the most unlikely pairing of symbols that point towards a delusion that Satan will use to lull us into submission.  My thoughts have been confirmed by a very detailed and informative article in Before It's News.  I would urge you to read it to get the full impact of this post.
     The first is not so hidden, if you are familiar with ancient mythology.  It involves the very current situation in Iraq.  I must admit that I did not see the deception at first.  In recent days, we have all been focused on the advance of the Islamic jihadist group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).  I, in fact, wrote that this was their official name, although I also saw references to them being called ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which in Arabic is al-Sham, meaning eastern Syria).  So why would the western world begin calling them by the name ISIS?
     The most probable reason is that ISIS is well known in Greco-Roman mythology, and something easily recognized by Western minds.  (Read this for a more in-depth understanding of the impact of this figure). She was worshipped as the ideal mother and wife as well as the patroness of nature and magic (make that sorcery).  Isis is also known as protector of the dead and goddess of children.  In the typical form of her myth, she married her brother, Osiris, and she conceived Horus with him.  Isis became known as the Mother Goddess, and Osiris was known as the Dark Father.  In Biblical terms, she is known as "the whore of Babylon".
     Isis was instrumental in the resurrection of Osiris when he was murdered by his brother, Set.  Using her magical skills, she restored his body to life after having gathered the body parts that had been strewn about the earth by Set.  There were 14 body parts strewn over the earth, but Isis could only find 13.  Of course, you can guess which part she did not find.  That missing body part became a symbol of power evidenced in the phallic-shaped obelisks found throughout the ancient and modern world.  This symbol of power was known as the "dged", pronounced as "jed".
     (A little side note:  There soon became a secret sect of the Dark Father known as dgedi, or "jedi".  Is it a coincidence that in the movie Star Wars, the symbol of the Dark Father and his death became Darth Vader?  Darth = Darkness and Death; Vader is Father in Dutch and German.  Is it also by chance that Darth Vader was a fallen Jedi Knight?)
     So exactly how does this ancient Isis connect to the jihadist group ISIS?  Can you conceive that in their conquests, they are attempting to pick up the pieces and restore back to life the modern Islamic Caliphate?  But the coincidences don't stop there.  At the death of Mohammed in 632 AD, a man by the name of Abu Bakr was installed as the first ‘khalifat rasul Allah’ (successor of the Prophet of God), or caliph of the Muslim religion.  According to the article in Before It's News, Abu Bakr suppressed tribal uprisings and brought central Arabia under Muslim control, after which he directed Arab armies into Iraq and Syria initiating the Muslim crusades.  Is it surprising to you that the current leader of ISIS's name is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?  So, 1432 years later we have a man by the same name leading Iraqis and Syrians in a new Muslim conquest.  The intent of this modern ISIS is to reclaim the capital of Iraq that sits so near to the ancient city of Babylon.  Could this be Satan using the power of names and symbols to proclaim his intent that Babylon the Whore should rise again?
     But remember, I promised you a dual picture of Isis in the world and our culture.  This symbolic representation may appear to be benign, but do not let your guard down.  Throughout the centuries the mythology of ISIS has captured the imagination of the world.  She appeared in nearly all civilizations and was known by her other notorious names ... Athena, Venus, Diana.  But, we in the Western culture, have done our share to feed and fortify her myth.

     Take for instance, the current movie, Maleficent, starring Angelina Jolie.  This is a modern reincarnation of Isis (note the horns), and is a re-do of the old Disney movie, Sleeping Beauty.  When I saw it at the age of 5, I was terrified by the evil sorceress, Maleficent.  But in this modern adaptation, the demonic Maleficent, who was once pure evil, has now morphed into a sympathetic Earth goddess (played by Jolie); cursing, yet protecting, her surrogate daughter, the sleeping beauty Aurora.
     A review, in The Olympian, puts forth a compelling argument that by endowing the horned Maleficent with motherly love, Disney seems to have embraced darkness in order to align themselves against those who claim to represent the “Light”.  And the choice of Angelina Jolie to play the sympathetic villain makes it easier for those who are inclined to be deceived to fall prey to the duplicity.  This picture of Isis, as the character Maleficent, begs our concern and compassion.
     But we must not be fooled!  The consistency and harmony between the ancient myth of Isis, and the current embodiments of her nature, are simply the method by which Satan must show us his sinister plans.  God demands it, and he must comply.  The question is this: will we see these symbols and signs, and note the coincidences for what they are  -- warnings of Satan's power and his demonic plans?  Or will we sink further into our illusions and fantasies?  The saga of Isis has survived as long as Satan has had power upon the earth.  And she lives on today, in both reality and our imagination.  It seems as if Satan is upping the ante, doesn't it?

2 Peter 1:16      "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

Did George Washington Wear A Tin Foil Hat?

     For months now, the monetary gurus across the web have been warning about the state of our economy and the attempts by global leaders to crash the dollar.  If you are halfway paying attention, then you know that the World Bankers pretty much control everything -- and have for a few hundred years.  Take that one step further and you enter "Conspiracy Land" and rumors of an organization called The Illuminati.
     Just who are these folks and how are they connected to our Founding Father?  I found one of the more concise explanations of who they are on the website GotQuestions.org.  This is a Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational site which attempts to help people find answers to their spiritual questions using the Bible as their source.
     I am being upfront about their bias because I think it is important to consider this conspiracy from a Biblical perspective.  According to this site, if you believe the conspiracy about the Illuminati, then you would have to summarize their existence in this way:  The Illuminati began as a secret society under the direction of Jesuit priests. Later, a council of five men, one for each of the points on the pentagram, formed what was called “The Ancient and Illuminated Seers of Bavaria.” They were high order Luciferian Freemasons, thoroughly immersed in mysticism and Eastern mental disciplines, seeking to develop the super powers of the mind.
     Their alleged plan and purpose is world domination for their lord (who precisely this lord is varies widely -- but any group that identifies themselves with Lucifer should give us a pretty good idea who they worship).
     The Illuminati are alleged to be the primary motivational forces encouraging global governance, a one-world religious ethic, and centralized control of the world’s economic systems.  (See the consistencies with the Book of Revelation?)  Organizations such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the International Criminal Court are seen as tentacles of the Illuminati. According to the Illuminati conspiracy, the Illuminati are the driving force behind efforts to brainwash the gullible masses through thought control and manipulation of beliefs, through the press, the educational curriculum, and the political leadership of the nations.
     Does the Illuminati conspiracy have any basis from a Christian/biblical perspective? Perhaps. There are many end-times prophecies in the Bible that are interpreted by most to point to an end times one-world government, a one-world monetary system, and a one-world religion. Many Bible prophecy interpreters see this New World Order as being controlled by the Antichrist, the end-times false messiah. If the Illuminati conspiracy and the New World Order has any validity and is indeed occurring, for the Christian, there is one fact that must be remembered: God has sovereignly allowed all these developments, and they are not outside of His overall plan. God is in control, not the Illuminati. No plan or scheme the Illuminati develop could in any way prevent, or even hinder, God's sovereign plan for the world.
     There will likely be those who dismiss all this as just another tin foil hat delusion.  But when one considers all the purported Illuminati symbols on our dollar bill, and the warning from our First President, it's not so easy to dismiss this theory as "crazy".  Tune in on Monday, when I will give you more details than you want to know that tie our dollar to this organization, the, ancient pagan world and the occult.
     For now, I will leave you with this quote from George Washington.  He made the following statement after receiving from a preacher friend, a book entitled Proofs of a Conspiracy  by John Robison.  President Washington expressed to that preacher that he believed the designs of the Illuminati were infecting our country.  Here are his prophetic words:
     “It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.” 
     Notice that he is not willing to condemn the Freemasons in America as a whole.  But he seems to admit the possibility that individuals within this secret society might be influenced.  Nevertheless, he is adamant that the goal is to "separate the People from their Government", and it "is too evident to be questioned."
     I am not writing this post in an effort to convince anyone.  I simply find it intriguing that this conspiracy has lasted for centuries and generations, and seems to be stronger than ever.  As a Christian, it certainly compares to Biblical prophecy, and recent world events seem to give it some validity.   The way things are going, I don't think it will be long before we see the culmination of "the conspiracy".  And I have news for the cabal ... they lose!

1 John 4:4    "Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world."

   

The Battle Over Bundy

     In regards to the ongoing theatrics at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, there has been a barrage of accusations among a wide spectrum of Americans, all who claim that they believe in freedom, liberty and limited government.  While the different camps seem to agree that the federal government over-reached in its armed reaction to Mr. Bundy's refusal to pay grazing fees, they are world's apart on the aftermath of his standoff.
     Some, like Glenn Beck, affirm that Bundy and his supporters are fomenting violence; while others such as Alex Jones, claim they were on the ground in Nevada and there was a concerted effort to remain nonviolent and follow the path of civil disobedience.  And now the name-calling has begun... and the attempts to discredit Bundy as a racist.
     I was amazed (and alarmed, actually) that the Beck camp was so quick to denounce Bundy as a racial bigot, due to his comments to the New York Times on the state of the black race.  Did he express his position eloquently?  No.  Was the use of the word "Negro" outdated?  Of course.  Yet it was far from inflammatory.  Having known quite a few Western ranchers, I can tell you that they are not current in our culture's slang or euphemisms.  I'm pretty sure, that to Mr. Bundy, "Negro" was a polite term that he has used his whole life.  To make him out to be something he is not, is not only reckless, but unconscionable.
     And who among us has not decried the current Welfare system as a new form of slavery?  It restricts the freedoms of all races to pursue life, liberty and happiness, as their Creator designed them.  After reading the NY Times interview, it appears to me that Mr. Bundy is a religious man, and is taking his moment in the spotlight to denounce the systems that are killing the human spirit.  It is his naiveté and lack of sophistication when dealing with the news media that kept him from filtering his thoughts and comments.  On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that --- it's kind of nice to hear frank, honest and sincere statements.  Remember, he doesn't have a high-paid publicist managing his every word.  Bet he'll think twice before giving his opinion on anything other than his struggle with the BLM.
     But to all those who have come out to denounce this man and his cause ... have you given any thought to the idea that this interview might have been orchestrated to do just that?  To cast him in a despicable light, and therefore give rise to disagreements and cat-fights between those who basically agree on the foundation of his fight?  Do you realize that the focus has now been taken off the government and transferred to some ridiculous and overblown comments; and that by fighting among yourselves, you are tearing down the very fabric of your righteous argument?   (And is it only me, but does Beck seem to be digging a deeper hole for himself by trying to protect his original misguided impression of the Bundy affair?  And just who is he relying on for his information?  They don't seem to have a clear understanding of the real picture).
     Whatever is going on behind the scenes, it smells rotten to me.  Politicians, who just days before, saw this as a constitutional fight, are now distancing themselves from Mr. Bundy's uneducated comments.  Far more provocative and incendiary comments have been made in the past by such real racial haters as Shabazz of the Black Panthers, yet some behind-the-times remarks by a plain, unpretentious rancher threaten to nullify one of the most important events in our modern history.  Think this is all accidental?  Keep your eye on what matters, and don't get fooled by the shell game.

Isaiah 32:7    "As for the scoundrel—his devices are evil; he plans wicked schemes to ruin the poor with lying words, even when the plea of the needy is right."
   

How Many Constitutional Rights Do We Really Have?

     I read a very lengthy and informative article on Washington's Blog, that pretty much said our Constitutional rights are virtually gone.  I highly recommend that you read it in its entirety, but for the sake of brevity and to give you something to contemplate, I will give you the scorecard that the author assigned to our Bill of Rights.

     First Amendment:  Protects speech, assembly, religion and the press.  The Supreme Court has also interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association.  The Secret Service can now arrest anyone protesting near the President, and there are countless numbers of things that will get you labeled a terrorist; including using social media, being part of political movements, paying cash at an internet café, wearing a hoodie, videotaping police officers, liking the Founding Fathers, opposing GMO foods, and being a Christian.
     Second Amendment:  The right to keep and bear arms.  The attempt by gun control advocates to ban certain weapons and magazines, and put more restrictions on gun owners (and laws on the books), says it all.
     Third Amendment:  Prohibits the government from forcing people to house soldiers.  Score one for the people!  We have an amendment still intact!
     Fourth Amendment:  Prevents unlawful search and seizure.  The NSA ... need I say more?  And the lock-down and involuntary door-to-door searches in Boston after the marathon bombing are unraveling this Amendment quite well.
     Fifth Amendment:  Addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury.  The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen or U.S. citizen without any due process.... drone strikes come to mind.
     Sixth Amendment:  Guarantees the right to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney.  The various cases involving the silencing of government whistleblowers testifies to the "secrets" being kept by our leaders.  And then there was the mysterious case against that film-maker blamed for the Benghazi debacle.  It is also hard to trust the justice system anymore; judges have lost their independence, so who's minding the store?
     Seventh Amendment:  Guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases.  This amendment still appears to be intact, but severe budget cuts to the courts threaten to throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of justice.
     Eighth Amendment:  Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.  Once again, government whistleblowers are under scrutiny, and being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out.  And let's not even mention the tactics that are becoming far too commonplace, such as indefinite detention.
     Ninth Amendment:  Provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution.  Just exactly what these "inherent rights" might be, will be a topic of intense discussion.  But for the sake of argument, could we consider the following?  Let's start with economic freedom to pursue our lives; safe food and clean drinking water (without being forced to ingest fluoride or genetically modified sources); a choice when it comes to vaccinating our children or purchasing health insurance.  Those are just for starters.
     Tenth Amendment:  Powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual.  Do you think the government really cares about "the consent of the governed"?  Do you feel their primary objective is to protect you ... or to control you?  The Federal government consistently tramples the separation of powers by interfering with the states' abilities to manage their own business.  The Federal Reserve Bank and IRS are just two agencies that have superceded their jurisdiction.
     So let's be honest, folks.  Do you really think that we still enjoy all the Rights that our Founding Fathers intended with this unique document?  Because from where I sit, it appears to me that the Ten Amendments that compose our Bill of Rights are in serious jeopardy of being trampled on, if not being subjected to downright attack.  Will they stand up to such a concerted effort to dismantle them?  We better hope so, because they are all that stand between us and undeniable repression.

Isaiah 33:15-16    "He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises gain from fraud and from oppression, who shakes his hand free from the taking of bribes, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes to avoid looking upon evil; [Such a man] will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him; water for him will be sure."

Founding Fathers Labeled "Extremists"

     In case you needed any convincing that the world is turned upside down, get a load of some of the information being disseminated to our military.  Judicial Watch, a watchdog organization, used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide.  First things first.  Judicial Watch is an organization that describes itself as "a conservative, non-partisan American educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law." (Transparency? Accountability? Integrity?  Kind of sounds like an oxymoron when discussing either government, politics, or the law!  But I digress.)
      According to its mission statement, Judicial Watch "advocates high standards of ethics and morality in America's public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people."  Noble cause; and I am grateful that there are people out there still guarding our liberty.
     And corresponding to their mission, JW President Tom Fitton had this to say about the afore-mentioned training guide: “This document deserves a careful examination by military leadership. Congress needs to conduct better oversight and figure out what the heck is going on in our military.”
     Case in point: The Department of Defense warns students, in the 133-page guide, to be aware that “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights and how to make the world a better place.”  Under a section titled “Extremist Ideologies,” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

     So let me get this straight .... Colonists such as George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were part of "extremist movements" when they sought to establish a country that would offer freedom and opportunity to all mankind?  And there is no disputing the fact that the War Between The States was a dark period in our history.  But both sides were fighting to maintain their God-given rights to self-government.  Apparently those who cherish individual liberty are a danger to the military.  Hasn't that been the mission of our military in every foreign war we've fought?  At least that was the justification for all those lost American lives.
      It should come as no surprise that the document relies heavily on information obtained from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leftwing organization that has a history of labeling conservative Christian organizations like the Family Research Council as “hate groups.”
     So what are we to think when our own government depicts conservatives and Christians as extremists, or seeks to label military personnel who might be members of the American Family Association with the same derogatory term?  Why is Christianity and individual liberty so unwelcome in the military?  Perhaps because they go hand-in-hand.  If the influence of the Christian faith can be systematically removed from our fighting forces, then the respect for self-government and the spirit of freedom-loving Americans can be controlled.
     But counting on Congress to conduct better oversight?  I agree that we need to find out "what the heck is going on in our military", but I don't think that Congress can get the job done.  I choose to rely on a Higher Power to correct the negligence and corruption.  It's going to take His power and authority to set this right.   And I would suggest the military scrap their 133-page manual for His "training guide."  Now there's an extremist ideology that could truly set man free.

John 8:36    "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

Are You Buying This?

   

     As if it couldn't be any more transparent, the White House has revealed that it will honor Woodrow Wilson with its official 2013 White House Christmas ornament.  This is not surprising, since President Wilson was a strong advocate of Progressivism, believing not only that we should challenge the very construction of the Constitution, but that the Declaration of Independence was no longer relevant.
     See if these observations from a 2007 article by G. Stolyarov II don't sound familiar:
•  Wilson believed in changing legal and political structures, but not merely for the sake of variety; he only supported changes that he considered "improvements"; he viewed the future, not the past, as the more glorious time toward which the present ought to aspire.  Wilson applauds the "modern idea" of leaving the past and pressing on to something new.
•  Wilson wanted to replace the system of checks and balances with a system of cooperation among the branches of government.
•  For Wilson, the Declaration of Independence had no meaning unless it could be reinterpreted in a way that evolved with the concrete circumstances of the times. This reinterpretation led Wilson to redefine even the word "tyranny" to mean "control of the law, of legislation and adjudication, by organizations which do not represent the people, by means which are private and selfish." Instead of opposing the tyranny of intrusive government, Wilson wished to redirect the Declaration against the "tyranny" of corporations.
•  Wilson claimed that there is no essential difference in principle between socialism and democracy. Both rest ultimately on the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members; both assert that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."
•  Additionally, Wilson claimed that changes in economic and social conditions justified changes in the role of government.  Wilson saw a danger in the growth of corporations, whose power he alleged to have grown enough to compete with government. He saw a role for government in restricting the power of these corporations.
     Need I go on?  For a full version of Mr. Stolyarov's article, click here.  But I think that I have shown you enough to explain the following White House press release:   The 2013 White House Christmas ornament honors Woodrow Wilson, the twenty-eighth president of the United States. The years of Wilson's two terms in office, from 1913 to 1921, are defined by the unprecedented devastation of World War I, yet Wilson himself would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919, and his life is distinguished by his resolve that the Great War would truly be the war to end all wars. It was President Wilson's extraordinary quest for a lasting world peace that inspired the design of our ornament....  The words inscribed on the reverse side of the ornament were delivered by President Wilson in his War Message to Congress of April 2, 1917: "Peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty."
     But here's the deal.  President Wilson changed the dynamic of this country's political identity away from freedom and independence.  He was largely responsible for the establishment of the United Nations, whose goal it is to usurp the sovereign rule of nations and to govern according to the "community of nations" model.  I have a pretty good sense that Wilson's (as well as his current predecessor's) idea of political liberty and mine do not coincide.
    Is the selection of this text and this ornament a message to our time?  Because, from where I stand, the very foundations of our political liberty are being dismantled, and our involvement (or lack thereof) in the social/democratic/peace processes throughout the Arab Spring (as well as Summer, Fall & Winter) have brought anything but peace!  From where I stand, the message and the symbol ring hollow for this season of Good Tidings.

Isaiah 52:7     "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, Who proclaims peace, Who brings glad tidings of good things, Who proclaims salvation, Who says to Zion, "Your God reigns!"
   

Is The Dream Still Possible?

     Fifty years ago today, the Reverend Martin Luther King delivered his famous "I Have A Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.  The questions I have are these:  Did any of his dream come true?  What is the state of his dream today?  Is it still attainable?

     In 1963, Reverend King wrote:  When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
     But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
Response:  He is absolutely right!  The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence gave every American the right to embrace those "unalienable Rights".  And yes, the black American was denied those rights until hundreds of thousands of Americans died on the battlefield to give them those rights.  When opportunities were slow in coming and injustice still prevailed, Americans (both black and white) turned to our government.  But notice that Dr. King was looking for the vaults "of opportunity" to be opened.  It was a "check of Opportunity" that he was hoping to cash; not a welfare check.  He was looking for the freedom that would come from Opportunity ---  the opportunity for black men to open businesses besides their white neighbors; the opportunity for black children to receive an equal education; the opportunity for black society to grow and reach for the stars and achieve all they could!
     Did that happen?  Are those opportunities anymore available today than they were 50 years ago?  I would assert that his dream is still alive and possible for those who recognize its value.  Evidence of that is in the careers of Oprah Winfrey; Kenneth Frazier (CEO of big pharma company Merck); Ursula Burns (CEO of paper giant Xerox); Robert Johnson (CEO of Black Entertainment Television); Entertainment moguls Russell Simmons, Sean Combs, and JZ.  And let's not forget that we have an African-American President!    

     So don't tell me that America is not the land of opportunity for the black man!  Because unfortunately, what the government offered black Americans was a false promise of "easy money"; and too many saw that as their "opportunity".  That was not the check Dr. King envisioned.  That check did not encourage them to reach for the stars, but instead enticed them into a new form of slavery.  The government handout didn't offer them "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  It squelched all ambition, signed them up for generations of bondage to the government dole, and killed any semblance of contentment with their lives.
     There is so much in Dr. King's excellent speech that I could expound on, but these words spoke the loudest:  But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.... I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."
Response:  I cannot help but feel that Dr. King would be saddened at the state of our race relations today.  We can all be proud that our national conscience has evolved to this place where black men and women serve in the highest offices in the land; run the most successful companies on Wall Street; and have achieved great triumphs in all fields of endeavor, including sports, entertainment, medicine and education.  Yet we see the black-on-black murder rate skyrocketing; the welfare and entitlement system has destroyed the black family; and we hear "justification" for the hate against white America --- or we hear nothing at all from the one man who could change the dialog.
     I honestly believe that Dr. King would be proud of the advancements his race has made.  But I also believe he truly wanted the glory of the Lord to be revealed, and that is still up to each and every one of us -- regardless of color.  It's time for the political and social leaders to point out the positive accomplishments since 1963, instead of exploiting the negatives for their own selfish agendas.  Then, and only then, can ALL Americans claim that we are "free at last".

Galatians 5:1     "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Me and Sam Adams: A History Lesson

     You have heard it said that our Constitution and our Founding Fathers are irrelevant to the modern age.  But if you've read my blog for any length of time, you know that I am obsessed with this time period in our nation's history.  I am in such awe of how this country came to be, and admire the men and women who stood up to a tyrant king and fought to establish something that had never existed before ... a country based on "the natural rights of man".  I hope to show you today that those sentiments are just as pertinent as they were nearly two and a half centuries ago.
     Perhaps you are familiar with the fact that the Founding Fathers were fond of using the terms, "natural rights", "Laws of Nature" and "unalienable rights", but aren't really sure what they mean.  Let's start with "unalienable". It figures prominently in our Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... 
     I would venture to say that most Americans have a distorted idea of what "unalienable" means.  I would further conclude that they think it takes its meaning from the word "alien", signifying that these "unalienable" rights were unfamiliar or foreign to men of that time.  That is a wrong interpretation, and we actually mispronounce the word altogether.  In 1776, when the Declaration was written, this word was not pronounced as un-alien-able; the correct enunciation was un-a-lien-able, as in "a lien", a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt.  For instance, the bank holds a lien against your car, until the note is paid off.
     So now you can see the true meaning of this most important phrase in one of our most important founding documents:  the natural rights that have been given to us by God are not subject to a lien by any king or ruler; they are ours to possess outright.

     And just what are those "natural" rights?  We're all familiar with the language of the Declaration, which says "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".  But my favorite Founding Father, Sam Adams, expands on this idea and gives us a fuller picture of what our rights from God are.   In 1772, he wrote, "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of ... the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.... Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?" 
     Can you see how far off track we have gotten?  CNN reports that one in six Americans receive some form of government assistance.  They have abandoned "the duty of self-preservation", and in doing so, no longer possess liberty to pursue their lives as they might dream.  In addition, they have become slaves of the State, their Life and their Happiness is at the whim of a benevolent Master.
     It seems as if America is splitting in half ---- those who are content to receive what the government will hand out; and those who are desperate to live their lives as free men, unencumbered by the heavy hand of an oppressive authority.  I am reminded that it was so in 1776 America, as well.  Only one-third of the colonists believed strongly enough in the "radical" notion of these God-given rights to battle the despotic King George III.  The other two-thirds either could not see the value of living their lives unfettered and unchained, or believed wholeheartedly in the Nanny State and the inability of citizens to rule themselves.   They were content to receive whatever was handed out, or placated with money and power from the "system".  Either way, they were at odds with the fire of free will that burned in the hearts of men such as Sam Adams.
     Mr. Adams was something of a firebrand, and was not afraid to confront his fellow countrymen over their subservient nature.  What he had to say to them in 1776 is just as relevant today.  Ponder his words:  "If ye love wealth better than liberty, [and] the tranquility of servitude [better] than the animated contest of freedom -- go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
     We are at a time in our nation's history when you must choose your path.  Are you willing to crouch down to those that promise to feed you?  Or are you willing to stand for something more honorable and noble?  Will you depend on the iron fist for your crust of bread, or will you make your own loaf?  Sam Adams was among a unique corps of men who understood that the right to make of themselves what they wished could never be compromised.  It was a truth they understood as "self-evident".  And they were willing to sacrifice their very lives for it.  Are you?

Psalm 119:44-47    "I will always obey your law, for ever and ever.  I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.  I will speak of your statutes before kings and will not be put to shame, for I delight in your commands because I love them."
   

Would James Madison Be Considered "Subversive" Today?

     Last week The Washington Times ran an article on a report issued by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.  According to this report, titled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right", there are three movements within our society that they consider important enough to include in their assessment.  Normally focused on such outside terror threats as Al-Quada and other Islamic extremists, the Center has turned their attention inward, pinpointing three domestic movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

     This study has already been criticized and condemned by many Constitutionally-minded support groups such as Oath Keepers, along with retired military personnel and Americans, in general.  The author of the study, one Arie Perliger, is the Director of Terrorism Studies at the Combating Terrorism Center, and is also a graduate of the University of Haifa Israel in Jerusalem, where he has studied and written extensive papers on the Politics of the Far Right in Israel.  He has also been published by Columbia University Press and Chicago University Press.  Now that we have established his obviously biased political leanings, it becomes a little clearer why his "report" is prefaced with the following disclaimer:  The views expressed in this report are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, Department of Defense or U.S. government.
     So why give it so much significance and publish it under the auspices of West Point?  This misleading paper attempts to lump such fringe groups as the Neo-Nazis and Skinheads (that would be your racist/white supremacy groups) with nut jobs who bomb abortion clinics (there's your fundamentalist group).   Granted, these movements have exhibited violent tendencies and their actions are abhorred by all moral segments of society.  But the most spurious and fraudulent aspect of this report labels an "anti-federalist" movement as sharing the same goals and actions as these criminal elements.
     Just how does the Mr. Perliger describe a member of the anti-federalist movement?  He describes an advocate of this movement as a person who "tends to have strong opinions about the federal government, believing it could be corrupt or tyrannical; that the federal government has a natural tendency to  intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.  Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most of their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement."  (Of course, he fails to cite specific instances of this so-called violence).
     But he doesn't stop there.  It's just a tiny leap of his twisted logic to connect the mainstream conservative ideology to his fabricated anti-federalist movement.  Of course, in his (wink, wink) impartial opinion, he chooses to describe liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as "living in the past".  He sums up this conclusion by stating,  “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

     So since the values of our historical heritage are embodied in the Founding Fathers, I can only surmise that Mr. Perliger would classify such Patriarchs as John Adams, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, James Madison, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as the forefathers of the "Violent Far-Right", and worthy of inclusion in his report.  After all, it is no secret that they all viewed limited government, individual rights, and freedom from tyranny as the bedrock of our Republic.
     Unfortunately, as all Progressives tend to do, he could not disguise his disdain for "far-right groups’ [whose] ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners.  The liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”  There you have it!  He has allowed us to see his political bias front and center.
     What has happened to the study and research of the blatant foreign extremists that wish to commit violence against this land?  Do any of these "experts" at West Point think it might be more productive to determine what mayhem and bloodshed they plan against the Homeland?
     But what is so upsetting and dangerous about such "studies" is that they are promoted from within the sacred halls of our most venerated Military establishments and accepted as Truth!  How many law enforcement agencies will receive this spurious report and develop policy based on the bogus facts and research that was conducted?  Why are our Military leaders silent on this publication?
     Perhaps even more disturbing and long-reaching is that Mr. Perliger teaches at West Point.  How many minds is he poisoning with this bitter attack on Constitution-loving Americans?  It is a sad day when our political heritage and a love for a free and independent citizenry can be painted with such a broad and black brush.  We must not let these aspersions define us.  As James Madison said, "The citizens of the U.S. are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society".  We have been entrusted with the Republic they left us, and it is our duty and our responsibility to safeguard it.  I will not be deterred by false labels or phony provocations.  There is too much at stake.

Psalm 27:11-12     "Teach me your way, Lord; lead me in straight path because of my oppressors.  Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes, for false witnesses rise up against me, spouting malicious accusations."
   
   

In The Midst of Darkness .....

     My post today is inspired by the Keynote address of Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, who spoke at the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. this week.

     As a serious lover of history, it is with reverence and awe that I regard the use of President Lincoln's Bible being used for the oath of office this last week.  The comparisons between Presidents Lincoln and Obama have become popular.  Both were senators from Illinois; both are known as skilled speakers, whose words impress and persuade (although Lincoln hand-wrote his speeches, while Obama uses a speechwriter who is a historian, well-versed in Lincoln).  The fact that both are presiding over a divided nation cannot be disputed.
     Mr. Obama's fondness for invoking Lincoln during his speeches is well-known, and the use of the former President's Bible is a show of respect and honor.  But I wonder if the President's speechwriter is aware of the immense faith of the President who presided over the darkest period of our nation's history.
     It goes without saying that our modern society and culture have attempted to diminish Lincoln's faith in God, just as they have so many of our Founding Fathers and historical Patriarchs.  But there are many instances that point to his profound belief that he was "a chosen instrument in the hands of the Almighty."  One cannot ignore the fact that on nine separate occasions during the forty-nine months of his presidency, Lincoln called his fellow citizens to humble themselves before God in public penitence, prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. His great Second Inaugural has been called “a prayer of confession for the whole nation.”

     Just read his words in the 1863 Proclamation for a National Day of Prayer:  And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord. And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People?
     We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God.  [Emphasis is mine.] We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness....
     Could these words not be spoken in truth today?  Actually they were.  They were recited at the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on Inauguration Day, by Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, who was the keynote speaker.  Rabbi Cahn is the best-selling author of The Harbinger, a book I highly recommend.  But he invoked the words of President Lincoln as reminiscent of another time our nation found itself in a similar state of darkness; just as we do today.  And he wasn't afraid to stand in our nation's capital and pronounce the nation's need for repentance.
      Rabbi Cahn was daring in his address, pointing out the similarities between America and the nation of Israel; both of whom were singled out by God to be consecrated to His purposes.  But now, like the ancient nation of Israel, we are a civilization at war against the very foundation upon which we were established.

      He was bold in declaring that our culture has turned on itself ---- what we once called immoral, we now celebrate.  What we once knew in our souls to be right, we now war against.  Our society grows more vulgar and dark.  Those who profess a faith in God are labeled as intolerant of others, and God, Himself, is ridiculed, mocked and blasphemed.  Rabbi Cahn says it is "as if a spiritual amnesia has taken over the land."  We have forgotten that those who came to these shores were committed to His purposes and glory.  He warns that we have committed a fatal error.  We have ruled God out of our culture, our government, our economy, our lives, and out of the instruction in our children's lives.  We have made ourselves strangers to God and embraced the idols of sensuality, violence, greed, and carnality.  And we wonder why we are a declining nation.
     We live in a new America; an America where the Bible is seen as contraband and nativity scenes are dangerous.  We live in an America where ministers are driven out of the public square and barred from praying at the Inauguration for stating what the Bible states as Sin.  We live in an America where profanity is treated as holy, and holiness is proclaimed profane.
     Ancient Israel offered up thousands of its children to the pagan gods Baal and Molech.  America has offered up millions of its children to the false idol called Abortion and Freedom of Choice.  Rabbi Cahn pointed out that over 50,000,000 souls were not able to witness the Inauguration of our President because their lives were legislated out of existence.  As a nation, we are accountable for those lost lives.  And as the good rabbi so eloquently stated, "No nation can war against the very source of its blessings, and expect its blessing to remain."
     So while I applaud President Obama for his gesture of respect towards one of our most courageous and beloved Presidents, I will pray that he, too, will humble himself to be used as an instrument in the hands of the Almighty.  God used Lincoln to restore this land, but then perhaps the American people took to heart their President's call for repentance on that long-ago day of National Prayer.  We'd better learn from their experience, or I fear our restoration will be hopeless.

2 Corinthians 12:20-21     "For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.  I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged."


   

Persecution In The Classroom

     You may have seen the news story earlier this week about Joelle Silver, the New York high school teacher who has been threatened with loss of employment unless she removes Christian messages and items from her classroom.  Ms. Silver had been employed as a Science teacher for seven years when she received a letter from her school superintendent.
     The letter, besides being condescending by implying that Ms. Silver was familiar with the First Amendment, at least to some degree, then goes on to give a weighty argument that a 1947 Supreme Court decision (Everson v. Board of Education) actually held that the First Amendment applies to the States, and that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that "aid one religion" or "prefer one religion over another", but as well those that "aid all religions".  The letter then goes on to declare that the Establishment Clause requires that the government pursue a course of "complete neutrality towards religion", and not promote religion or entangle itself in religious matters.

     Furthermore, the letter stated that, as a public employee, the First Amendment rights accorded to every citizen, do not apply to her.  The School Superintendent even went so far as to say, "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen, by necessity, must accept certain limitations on his or her freedoms." Excuse me?  I don't think a citizens place of employment is stipulated in the Constitution.
     I find all this high falutin' and patronizing speech quite curious since, according to an article on the  Knowledge is Power website, the U.S. public school system is being strongly urged by the Administration to adopt the Common Core State Standards. (At this time 45 states have adopted it).  This article and many more that I ran across warn that the course curriculum includes the study of Islam as a world religion, and all the wonderful benefits it brings to society. So where's the "complete neutrality towards religion"?  Why would this be agreeable, yet Ms. Silver is not allowed to present any remnant of her religion?
     And just what did this teacher do that was so objectionable?  Again, within the letter, the Board of Education was only too kind to supply "examples of her personal religious expression", including posters, with Biblical verses, placed around her classroom.  Some of them read:

Wash me thoroughly [and repeatedly] from my iniquity and guilt 

and cleanse me and make me wholly pure from my sin! - Psalm 51:2

The Lord is my Rock, my Fortress, and my Deliverer; my God, my keen and firm Strength in Whom I will trust and take refuge, my Shield, and the Horn of my salvation, my High Tower. - Psalm 18:2

 The heavens declare the glory of God; 

and the firmament shows and proclaims His handiwork. - Psalm 19:1 

Let them praise and exalt the name of the Lord, for His name alone is exalted and supreme! His glory and majesty are above earth and heaven! - Psalm 148:13

     Personally, I think that today's students would be well-served to have the influence of these Bible verses in their lives.  Biblical inspiration was good enough for nearly nine generations of Americans, and with its removal, I think we can see the steady decline of our culture.  But this wasn't her only transgression.  Oh, no!  She even went so far as to superimpose another Bible verse over computer-generated images of the American flag. (Gasp!)  The Bible verse?  

Be alert and on your guard; stand firm in your faith. Act like men and be courageous; grow in strength!  Let everything you do be done in love.  1 Corinthians 16:13-14

     But Ms. Silver further aggravated the School Board with images of the cross in her classroom, a "Prayer Request" box on her desk, and by sponsoring a Bible Study Club.  And to add to her list of offenses, she actually had the nerve to post a quote on her classroom wall by President Ronald Reagan: "Without God there is no virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience ... without God there is a coarsening of the society; without God democracy cannot and will not long endure .... if ever we forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under."  

     As we should expect, it was an atheist group who complained about Ms. Silver's expression of her faith and prompted the "counseling" letter.  The long and short of it is that Ms. Silver must stop her actions or face being fired.  But the School Superintendent and Board of Education didn't foresee just how much fight this teacher had in her.  She sued, claiming her First Amendment rights were violated.  “As a Christian and as an American I feel it’s incredibly important to fight to protect the rights that people have died to give me.”  I can think of no more noble cause.

      By this time, it should be very clear that not only our religious freedom, but the Constitution, itself, is under attack.  Here, we have the First Amendment under fire, and this week, we have seen the Second Amendment come under extreme attack.  Do not think that these will be the last.  These rights were inspired by the Bible and if the Devil can convince civil authorities to dismantle them one by one, he will not only impugn the Constitution, but God Himself.  It is inherent upon each of us to do battle for our God and our Republic.  The very nature of our survival, both physically and spiritually, depends on it.   I believe that Ms. Silver and her posters are a good start towards reintroducing God into our culture.

Tune in tomorrow for my initial thoughts on the Executive Orders issued on gun legislation.  I couldn't help reading between the lines and will share my observations, simple though they may be.

Deuteronomy 12:28    "Be watchful and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and with your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God."

Persecution Around the World: It's On Our Doorstep

     In response to yesterday's post, one of my faithful (and very intelligent) readers commented on a little publicized situation.  He pointed out that the Christian Copts of Egypt are fleeing persecution in the wake of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.  He further suggested that our government is none too willing to open our doors and welcome them to the "land of the free", for fear that it might offend our Islamist "partners".  This isn't the first time our political leaders have considered denying safe haven to those fleeing religious persecution, and it reminded me that we might be flirting with a repetition of a disgraceful episode in our national saga.

Jewish refugees aboard USS St. Louis

     About.com provides a detailed history of a shameful chapter in the American narrative.  Here is the short version:  May 13, 1939, the S.S. St. Louis left Hamburg, Germany for Havana, Cuba carrying 937 passengers, most of whom were Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Most had applied for a visa to the U.S. and were planning on only staying in Cuba until able to legally enter the U.S. During the two weeks it took the St. Louis to cross the Atlantic, the political climate in Cuba changed drastically. These changes in Cuba caused the landing permits held by those aboard the St. Louis to become invalid.  Denied entry into Cuba, those aboard the St. Louis begged the United States and other countries to let them in. Although newspaper reports sympathized with the refugees, no non-European country would allow them entry. On June 7, 1939, the St. Louis headed back to Europe, delivering many of its Jewish passengers back into the hands of the Nazis and their inevitable death in concentration camps.
     This is a scenario that is likely to be an increasing phenomenon as Christians around the world flee persecution and turn to the U.S. for asylum.  Just as my afore-mentioned reader's Church welcomed Vietnamese refugees, The Telegraph reports "Coptic Christian churches in the United States say they are having to expand to cope with new arrivals, as priests in cities like Cairo and Alexandria talk of a new climate of fear and uncertainty."  In 2010, at the beginning of the Arab Spring, many Muslim faith leaders and churches actively showed their support for inter-faith unity.  But, in the wake of President Morsi's election and the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in parliamentary elections, the mood in the country has changed.  The implementation of Sharia law is now front and center.  Needless to say, the Coptic Christians in Egypt fear persecution.
     They aren't the only ones.  The Baptist Press published a report of heightened religious persecutions of Christians throughout Sudan.  This persecution includes government bombings at the end of 2012 that killed at least 11 Christians and included the arrest of two Coptic Orthodox priests for baptizing a convert from Islam.  Villages are bombed, Christian church leaders are arrested, and Islamic extremists call for aggressive government action to rid Sudan of Christianity.  The report states that these attacks have left ethnic Nuba Christians questioning the international community's presumed silence over the persecution in Sudan's Nuba Mountains.

     The website, Christianity Today, reveals that Al Shabab, an al-Qaeda affiliated militia, has begun using young men from predominantly Christian ethnic groups to attack churches in Kenya.  "[Jihadists] have changed their recruitment tactics," said Wellington Mutiso, head of Evangelical Alliance of Kenya. "Instead of enlisting from predominantly Muslim communities such as the Somali, Boran, and others, they are targeting those from tribes that are majority Christians, such as the Kikuyus, Luos, and Luhyas."
     According to the website, hundreds of Kenyan youths who converted from Christianity to Islam—and then went to fight alongside jihadists in neighboring Somalia—are returning to their home churches to wreak havoc and bombings.  Due to the high rate of unemployment, the former Christian youth were easily tempted with money to convert to Islam.  How like the Devil to corrupt a Believer and convince him to attack his brethren.
     In just the last few days there has been a growing concern for the safety of a Christian Iranian-American pastor, Saeed Abedini.  Pastor Abedini has long been targeted by Iranian authorities for helping underground churches in Iran and for his charity work.  He has been in jail in Iran since July, 2011, suffering beatings and severe interrogations.  Next Monday, January 21st, is the date set for his trial in Tehran, and he has expressed to his wife that he fears the death penalty.
     An added danger in this case is the fact that Pastor Abedini's case was also recently transferred over to a notorious "hanging judge" in Iran, named in 2011 by the European Union as an individual subject to sanctions for human rights violations for sentencing a number of human right activists to death.  The Christian Post states that the U.S. State Department recently revealed its "serious concerns" for the pastor's imprisonment, but stopped short of calling for his immediate release. The American Center for Law and Justice has urged the State Department to take a stronger stand on the issue and offer better protection for Americans persecuted in other countries for their Christian faith.  But as my faithful reader informed us, our government is more interested in being "politically correct" and not offending Muslims, than it is in protecting American Christians.  How long before we have to worry about such lack of protection in our own country?

     As Christians, we have one bit of news to celebrate in the world.  Apparently Chinese Christians, long persecuted by their atheistic Communist government, have embraced the internet and blogs to express their faith.  Again, The Baptist Press, along with World Watch Monitor, reports that the youth of China are beginning to challenge censorship by speaking out against religious persecution.  They are sharing their Christian faith on Weibo, China's giant state-regulated social network.  But as China's Christians become more courageous in pronouncing their faith online, one has to wonder how far the state-regulated website will allow them to go?  These sources remind us that China still ranks among the top 50 worst persecutors of Christians in the annual World Watch List published by the Open Doors religious freedom watchdog group.
     And as online users here in America fear, what is to keep the State from monitoring who is using the site?  After all, China's government is only too aware of how the internet was used to encourage participants in the Arab Spring.  There are 14 million "Registered Believers", sanctioned by the State in China; and over 60 million Believers participating in unregistered and illegal home churches.  You can see how the combination of Christianity and the internet would be heavily scrutinized by China's cyber police. That being said, all Christians should celebrate the spread of our faith in China by these bold bloggers, who risk suspicion, surveillance and arrest.  Please pray for their continued safety and the spread of the Gospel.
     In summary, I wanted Americans to realize that we have taken the expression of our faith for granted for far too long.  Those being persecuted in far-flung corners of the world still see America as a refuge from religious persecution.  But are we?  Will we welcome these persecuted Christian brethren to our shores?   Will we continue to be a Christian nation?  I ask you to consider this:  Once we saw the Ten Commandments on every courthouse lawn, and the Lord's Prayer in every classroom.  Now we have to fight in court to be allowed to openly demonstrate what our Founding Fathers viewed as our natural right.   Tomorrow I will show you just how far away we've moved from that ideal.  It's time to join the Christians of the world and be bold in proclaiming our faith in Jesus Christ!

John 15:19, 21     "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.... But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me."


   

Daughters of the American Revolution: Fairly Criticized or Falsely Accused?

    Earlier this week, a Fox News contributor reported that the venerable Daughters of the American Revolution have attempted to remove Jesus Christ from their 2011 publication of their Rituals and Ceremonial Missals (Convocations and Prayers listed as a guideline for Chaplains).  My first reaction, was "How dare they!"  Then I remembered that nothing can be taken at face value where the Media is concerned.
     I could not imagine that this patriotic service organization for women who are directly descended from a person involved in the United States' War for Independence would ever consider denying the Christian foundation of this nation.  After all, they work primarily to promote historic preservation, education and patriotism; and removing Jesus from that equation just would not be accurate.  Yet, here is a "conservative" reporter supposedly outing one of the lynchpins of American nationalism. Starnes reports that members told him that the DAR leadership made the changes to be politically correct and to accommodate new members of other religious beliefs.
     For their part, the DAR initially made no comment, and then a State Chaplain released this statement:  "The newly updated Missal and Ritual was written to reflect the desire to be considerate of other belief systems.  The Chaplain General uses scripture from both the Old and New Testaments and prays in the name of God without referencing Christ. Chapter and district chaplains need to follow the example set by the National Society.”
     I decided to do a little research myself and see just what all the fuss was about.  At first glance, the latest publication of the Rituals and Missals available online, lists an impressive directory of Rituals, including the Pledge of Allegiance (in which "under God" is recited), the American's Creed, the Preamble to the Constitution, and a multitude of benedictions and prayers.  Throughout the prayers, the Chaplains call upon "the name of the Lord", and they end prayers "in your Holy Name".  They pray to "Our Heavenly Father", "God Almighty", "Gracious Lord", "Eternal God" and other variations.  At first glance, this seems to be in line with Christian traditions.

     Then I decided to do a little comparison between publications from different years.  I took a look at "George Washington's Prayer For His Country."  This has been included in publications down through the decades and I wanted to see if there had been any considerable changes in the substance of this prayer.  Here is the prayer as stated in the latest 2011 publication:
     Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord and confusion; from pride and arrogancy and from every evil way. Defend our liberties and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought out of many kindreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there be peace and justice at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. Amen.
     I then decided to take a look at this same prayer as illustrated in 2001.  It was printed exactly the same, word for word.  But I was still curious to see if our Founding Father's prayer for his country had substantially changed within the last quarter century.  So I took a look at their Centennial 1991 publication:
     Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that thou wilt keep the United States in thy holy protection; that thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subor­dination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally, that thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

     Aha!  There it is!  And if you are capable of any kind of critical thinking you can see a change in the meaning of our First President's prayer.  Over the last twenty years, the value of George Washington's prayer has changed from a Biblical overtone of cultivating the hearts of individual citizens in justice, loving mercy, charity and humility towards a collective multitude that lives in peace and harmony at home and among the nations of the earth.  Furthermore, in 1991, the Chaplain would have asked for these blessings through Jesus Christ.  Not so in 2001 and 2011.  An unnamed God was asked to bestow the more secular blessings of hard work, education and freedom from violence and pride, which have become the hallmarks of American arrogancy among the Left.
     I then decided to visit an earlier time in our country's history and read through the 1953 DAR publication.  There was an abundance of invocations that Chaplains had at their disposal.  They overwhelmingly called upon the name of Jesus.  This is just one example:
     Dear Heavenly Father, we come before Thee humbly seeking Thy forgiveness for our many shortcomings. We are not able to comprehend Thy great power and love for Thy children, but we feel that whatsoever we ask of Thee through Jesus our Lord Thou cans't give it to us if it is Thy will. We thank Thee for the many blessings we enjoy daily. We thank Thee for our beloved country which is in such peril at the present time. 0 Father, give to the men and women elected to lead us wisdom and understanding and a willingness to ask Thy help that right and Christianity may prevail, and be an example to the rest of the world. In Jesus' name. Amen.
     And if you desire, you can go all the way back to the 1903 publication of the DAR Rituals, which reads like an evangelical revival and Fourth of July celebration all rolled into one!  But in the end, I come away from this controversy with the sad realization that even the Daughters of the American Revolution have slid down the slippery slope of political correctness.  While they maintain that they are in keeping with the original intent of the organization and honoring freedom of religion, which was one of the most important facets of American independence, I find the statement by the President General of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution to be of a compromising nature:

"The Executive Officers feel that the revised Ritual and Missals can be used by members of any faith, substituting words as they wish, changing the prayers to suit the needs of the meeting in which they are being used. At our Executive meetings, knowing that we are all Christian, we pray in the Name of Jesus. When those are present whose faith is unknown, we pray in God’s name. However, we all recognize that when Christians pray in God’s name we are, indeed, praying in Christ’s name because the Christian faith believes in the Trinity of God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We also understand that our Jewish members know God as Jehovah or Yahweh, Muslim members use the name Allah for God and there are those whose spirituality may have a still different higher power or none at all."
     Were there Muslims fighting in the Revolutionary War?  History tells us that one Peter Saleem was a slave from Africa who fought bravely at Bunker Hill.  I am sure there were others, not of the Christian faith, who took part in securing our independence.  But it is a fact that the majority of patriots were of the Christian faith.  While I cannot disagree that the faiths of all Revolutionary patriots should be honored, I find it disgraceful that the name of Jesus Christ has slowly been eliminated from all official ceremonies.   The DAR is adamant that they are not censoring prayers.  On the surface, that is a correct statement.  But they are insincere if they claim Jesus Christ is still a part of stated prayers and devotions.  Chaplains are allowed to insert His name whenever they deem it "appropriate for the occasion and the audience."  My question is this:  Since when is His name ever inappropriate?  And why has His name been removed from the historical prayers and benedictions of the organization?  It is one thing to be inclusive of a patriot's different faith.  It is heresy to exclude the Founding Father's stated faith in Jesus Christ.

1 John 3:23     "And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as He commanded us."