When God Is Removed From War

     As I scanned the news stories across the Web, one particular headline caught my eye ... "Marine Court-Martialed For Refusing To Remove Bible Verse".  The absurdity of that statement made it obligatory that I click on the article.  And just as I suspected, the animosity against Christians in the military is growing out of all proportions to the alleged harm it is causing.

     Lance Corporal (LCpl) Monifa Sterling is accused of displaying a verse of Scripture on her computer -- written on a scrap of paper -- that the military has determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”   The verse?  Isaiah 54:17:   “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”  When Lance Corporal Sterling refused to remove the verse, she was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.  After representing herself at trial, the Christian Marine was ultimately given a bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private.  
     Both lower court and the appellate court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to her case because displaying a Bible verse does not constitute religious exercise.  The Liberty Institute and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, also a law professor at Georgetown University, are now representing Sterling.
     First, let me say that this is not shocking to me in light of the fact that both God and our Constitution no longer merit any respect or consideration in how we run our national institutions.  This is apparent by the U.S. military policies that are being accelerated to allow the recruitment of as many illegal aliens as possible -- young men and women who have no emotional ties to America and no fundamental understanding of how our constitutional republic is supposed to function -- or the history of how faith in God played a huge part in the success of the military victories that established this nation.
     But Lance Corporal Sterling obviously knows the connection between God and military victories. The words she taped to her computer screen are part of a longer verse in Isaiah 54 that reads, No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, And their righteousness is from Me,” Says the LORD.

     I'd like to think that LCpl Sterling knows that she is upholding a long tradition of warriors who know the name of Jehovah Nissi ... The Lord Is My Banner.  I'd like to think that she knows that this is the name of God that Moses disclosed to Joshua before he went into battle against the Amalekites.  As long as Moses raised the staff (banner) of God, Joshua and the Israelite army were assured victory.  Perhaps LCpl Sterling understands that this battle was all about God.  Joshua, Moses, Aaron, Hur, and the Israelite armies were simply vessels God used, but the battle itself was orchestrated by God. Moses knew this and wanted to make certain the Israelites knew it and remembered it. Nothing that he or they did in the physical realm brought about victory. God’s presence and power took them into the battle and assured the victory when the battle was done.
     So what do the Marines and the Military Establishment find so darn offensive about Sterling believing that to be victorious in the military battles she will face, she cannot fight them in her own strength, but needs the Lord to go before her, just as He did with Joshua?  How is knowing that she needs the Lord in order to assure victory "contrary to good order and discipline"?  Or how can this understanding be seen as "divisive and contentious", which the Marines maintain?  As her Liberty Institute lawyer pointed out, “Our Marines are trained to deal with some of the most hostile people on the planet. I don’t think they are afraid of tiny words on a tiny piece of paper.”
     For now, Sterling's name has been tarnished with the bad conduct discharge, and she is currently out of a job.  But perhaps the Lord has a bigger purpose for her.  Perhaps He chose this battle for her in order to show that He will go before her and win the battle; that she is His human instrument, just as Joshua and his men were.
     I pray that the Lance Corporal will stand strong behind the banner of the Lord, and remain above the demands and accusations; being free from the crushing effects of this unjust sentence.  In the end, I hope she believes that she will be vindicated and triumph over her opposition.  The standing of every person of faith serving in the Armed Forces depends on it.  Without this victory in the Lord, God help our military and the defense of this nation.

Isaiah 50:8    "He who vindicates me is near. Who then will bring charges against me? Let us face each other! Who is my accuser? Let him confront me!"

Courageous or Irresponsible?

   

     Whether you agree with her methods or not, one must certainly give Pamela Geller credit for making Sharia law in America come out of the shadows.  The outspoken and controversial political activist has been known for her opinions on radical Islam and the politicization of Islam.  She has become a tireless spokeswoman against "creeping Sharia" in our country, which has resulted in her being labeled anti-Islamic and Islamophobic by the media and pundits on both sides of the political spectrum.  Geller is a Jewish American, and her pro-Israel stance has also made her a target of anti-semitic critics.
     All that being said, she is not averse to public and heated disagreement when it comes to getting her message across: Sharia law is dangerous, and has no place in the American judicial system.  She asserts that Shariah law is different from the theological constructs governing other faiths, claiming that canon law only applies to Catholics and Jewish law only governs Jewish people; she said that Shariah law differs in that it “asserts its authority over non-Muslims” as well.  Her continued campaign to shine a spotlight on the dangers of making concessions to Sharia in the name of "tolerance" and "inclusivity" in order to appease radical Muslims, has kept her message on the fringes ... no media pundits or outlets would take her seriously or give her air time to present her views.
     To be honest, it is tough to applaud her decision to hold a contest mocking the prophet Muhammad.  There is no one who would say she didn't expect a violent outcome.  And I have heard others remark that there were other ways to achieve her goals.  But can you suggest another way that would have forced all the news corporations to cover the fallout of her decision; or that would have forced a discussion of the full ramifications of Sharia Law into the public forum?  Is anyone focusing on the fact that two men were compelled to try to kill her, or others, in the name of jihad?
     Who has not seen or heard radical cleric Anjem Choudary's call for Ms. Geller to be put before a Sharia court and receive the full penalty for facilitating such offensive cartoons, “and if found guilty, of course, she would face capital punishment.”  Did you get that?  In the United States of America, you have a religious cleric promoting a sentence of death for exercising the right of free speech that this country prizes so much!  What a gross misrepresentation of what our justice system is all about!
     You might think that her methods were crude and in poor taste, but ultimately, she accomplished her goal: pointing out that Islamic Sharia law goes against everything this country stands for.  What's more, the mask has been pulled off, and the public has a clear view of how Sharia restricts and obstructs freedom.
     I want to be clear; I don't agree with everything that Pam Geller stands for.  She is "socially liberal" in her support of abortion legalization and same-sex marriages.  She is a theist who defends the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition, but I can find no evidence of a declared faith.  But she is a stalwart defender of free speech as a protection against tyranny, and is unafraid to provoke or offend in order to prove a point.  In response to critics who disapprove of her event in Garland, Texas this last week, her response is unapologetic:  “There is no automatic or unavoidable response to being insulted. No one is forced to kill for being insulted,” she said. “Those who choose to do so are responsible for their actions. No one else is.”
     Then there are those who find her methods too offensive and controversial.  And I would dare say that many of our church leaders would shy away from confronting the religion of Islam and Sharia law because they don't want to offend.  But by avoiding the subject, do they then lack any credibility and/or influence?  Think about Jesus and how He made his point in the public arena!
     People either loved Him, or loved to hate Him.  He wasn't afraid to offend the religious leaders of His day, the Pharisees; nor stand up to the political rule of the Romans.  The crowds flocked to Him because of the things He said and did; yet, they also loved to argue with Him and accuse Him of blasphemy and consorting with the Devil.  His methods were certainly controversial for the day, and He was a threat to the accepted practices of His time.  But He was willing to draw attention to Himself in order to shine a light on truths that needed to be revealed.
     Now, Pamela Geller is no Savior of the world, but she understands that if you want to be heard, you sometimes have to be willing to be bold, be criticized, and be willing to be misunderstood -- all in order to draw attention to your cause and make people think for themselves.  Whether she was courageous or irresponsible, the debate that her event has engendered may well wake up America to the danger that lies within.  May God use it for His glory!

Jeremiah 17:10    “I, the Lord, search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”




   

"There Is No 'S' In Freedom"

     A few days ago, a friend of mine, Scott, commented that he had enjoyed reading my book, but he disagreed with me on one point.  I said, "That's alright ... I'm open to constructive criticism.  What did I say that you disagree with?"
     He told me that he couldn't help but notice that I consistently wrote about defending my "freedoms", and he just needed to inform me that, in the true sense, "Freedom" had no "s" on the end of it.  He went on to explain that this nation once had a wise President who said, "Freedom is indivisible - there is no 's' on the end of it. You can erode freedom, diminish it, but you cannot divide it and choose to keep 'some freedoms' while giving up others."  I'm sure it comes as no surprise to many of you, that this sage advice came from our 40th President, Ronald Reagan.
     It didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that both Scott and President Reagan were correct.  If we see Freedom as a collection of "rights" or "privileges", then a duplicitous or oppressive government could convince the populace that by merely altering, or even abolishing, a single aspect of our liberty, we are still left with the concept of having Freedom.   It shouldn't take one long to realize that over a period of time, or generations, much damage could be done by chipping away at our freedom.  What was once our stronghold of personal independence and liberties could easily be whittled down to a house of straw; easily demolished by any despot or tyrant.

     Freedom cannot be divided into sub-compartments because that gives one the illusion that there are separate facets to freedom; some perhaps less significant or consequential than others, and thereby less necessary.  Yes, the first Amendment of our Bill of Rights enumerates a number of "Freedoms", including that of speech, of the press, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  But although the object of the Freedom may change, the "state of Freedom" remains the same.  It is a state of not being imprisoned or enslaved; and it imparts the power of self-determination.
     Freedom is the state in which a person has control over his or her life; the ability to self-determine his destiny.  "Civil liberties" are often touted as the hallmark of American citizenship.  But how much freedom and control do we really have over our individual lives when 22 U.S. agencies are combined [under the banner of "Homeland Security"] in order to achieve "total information awareness" about every American citizen?  When every public record that pertains to you is accessible by someone you don't know, then that is a threat to your freedom.  The sad thing is, we have surrendered our autonomy and freedom from external control without even a sincere challenge.  It is disappearing before our very eyes, and with our unwitting compliance.
     Finally, and regrettably, the once lofty ideal of freedom that this country represented, and its leaders embodied, has been replaced by a belief system that champions money and power.  America once recognized that their state of freedom was bestowed by God; but His Dominion and Sovereignty have been replaced by the Supremacy and Restraint of the State.  So, the question becomes, "Does Freedom still reside in America?"  I fear that it is taking its last breath, and unless God chooses to intervene, "the Land of the Free" will no longer exist.

2 Corinthians 3:17   "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

Will Enforced Vaccinations Become The Law of the Land?

     The state of California appears to be at the forefront of forcing a showdown between those who are pro-vaccine adherents and those who maintain it should be freedom of choice.  I'm afraid that my "conspiracy" hackles are once again rising as this debate heats up.
     Supposedly the rush to law for mandatory vaccinations centers around an outbreak of measles, which originated last winter at Disneyland.  There was an immediate panic over all the deaths that would ensue, as infected children returned to their home cities and states.  The media did everything they could to fan the flames of fear and promote nationwide vaccinations among our country's school-age children.  There was all kinds of media buzz over "the outbreaks" of measles across the land.  But I could not find one report or statistic about run-away numbers of infected, or deaths.  Only one report said, "Measles count at 59 and rising" ... but that was nationwide!  We had that many in one semester of my elementary school in the 1960s.  And if I recall, no one died and no serious health issues ensued.  Is it all a sham for forced inoculations?

     If so, California is Ground Zero for amending state legislation which would require children at public and private schools to be vaccinated unless a doctor determines they should be exempt for medical reasons.
     But there has been some measure of success in stopping the government from forcing children to be vaccinated.  As of this last week, California SB277 has stalled, and the bill's author was given a one-week delay to alter the legislation in order to make it more presentable to legislators.
     At the heart of the debate are the issues of personal freedoms versus public health.  Some lawmakers were concerned that the bill would deprive unvaccinated kids of a constitutionally required education by barring them from schools.  And choosing to homeschool your children would not necessarily protect your children from the long arm of this law.  Some lawmakers said the way the bill is written, children who are homeschooled would be barred from group learning with other homeschooling families.
     It appears to me that this would be government "strong-arm" tactics.  By refusing to educate non-vaccinated children in the public schools, and by putting roadblocks in the way of home-schooled kids, the government is attempting to force it's own medical mandate on its citizens.  Not only is this a personal choice issue, but many parents are skeptical of the added chemicals in vaccines.  They simply do not trust across-the-board vaccinations because the government "says so".
     Just in case the "scare tactics" of the measles outbreak don't work, pro-vaccine advocates aren't above pitting parents against each other.  Children who cannot be immunized due to adverse reactions (those being treated for cancer, for instance) would be required to stay home for 21 days because another parent refused immunizations based on religious or anti-vaccine positions.  Do you see how it works?  Those who choose not to vaccinate (for whatever reason) are seen as the villains -- if everyone would just vaccinate their kids, then the state wouldn't have to quarantine anyone.
     So, here's how that thinking goes ... I don't really care or worry about what might be in those vaccines.  I think you should vaccinate your kids so it doesn't interfere with my child's education.  We should just all blindly follow what the state tells us.
     But parents who are skeptical of vaccines have usually done their homework.  It is not a knee-jerk reaction and they are well-schooled in the possible reactions that come with chemicals and multiple vaccinations.  They should not be forced to comply with government edicts regarding the health of their children.  As one mother stated, “I would leave the state” if the bill passes. “This is about informed consent. We should be able to make our own decisions.”  (Of course, a few hundred thousand unvaccinated immigrant children in your state should help you make that decision, right?}
     So we should all be watching California very carefully.  Those of us born with the "suspicious gene" will find it ironic that due to an inflated sense of alarm over a few cases of the measles last December, we now find, just a few months later, a bill before the California legislature that seeks to make vaccinations by the State mandatory.  If they are able to get this legislation passed, then it will become precedence for amendments to the law in the other 49 states.
    I do not think parents are being over-paranoid to mistrust vaccinations.  When one considers the government's interest in genetic engineering, and private pharmaceutical companies being funded to research nanobot medicine -- not to mention technological advances towards transhumanism -- one would be foolish to indiscriminately vaccinate your child.  As the California mother said, it is about informed consent ... the American people should become knowledgable on this subject, and they should demand their right to decide for themselves and their children.  Stay vigilant!

Addendum:  Public schools in Spokane, Washington are invoking a law that requires proof of vaccination before students are allowed to remain in the classroom.  Those who oppose the compulsory vaccinations must provide a signed waiver from a health care professional or be able to prove that they challenge it on religious grounds.  Coming soon to a school near you!

Revelation 18:23   "... and all nations were deceived by your sorcery."  [ The root Greek word for "sorcery" is actually pharmakeia (to administer drugs)].

"I Will Not Back Down"

     Yesterday, I talked about the very real danger of this nation losing its identity as independent free-thinkers and upholders of our inherited freedoms.  But I'd like to tell you two stories of individuals that have decided to stand up for our fading values.
     You might recall an essay I wrote last summer that involved William Baer, who appeared at a meeting of his local School Board to protest a book that had been assigned to his 14-year-old daughter.  Mr. Baer stood up to say that he felt the sexual content of the book was inappropriate, and he wanted to voice his objection.  However, the members of the school board didn't want to hear it, and asked him to sit down.  Apparently he wasn't being "respectful" of other audience members.
     Understandably, this offended the conscientious parent and he said he didn't appreciate the school being disrespectful to his daughter by requiring a book (that he clearly felt was immoral) to be read.  He was then told that he had violated the 2-minute rule for speaking and was escorted out of the room and arrested.
     As World Net Daily reports, his "unlawful arrest" and the criminal charges that were filed against him were eventually thrown out of court, but Mr. Baer has decided that "it’s time for elected leaders to stop trampling the First Amendment rights of citizens," and he is fighting back with a lawsuit against the officer who made the arrest, then-acting Police Chief James Leach.  For the past seven months, Leach, along with the subsequently appointed Police Chief, continued to prosecute the case against Mr. Baer, until County Judge James Carroll tossed the case out of court.
     Baer said his lawsuit is as much about stopping the national trend as it is seeking justice for himself.  “These men abused their authority and their positions under color of law. The ‘law enforcers’ became lawbreakers and must be held to account.”
     Mr. Baer is among a growing number of law-abiding citizens who have been arrested for speaking up for their principles.  Parents who disapprove of the Common Core educational system are being harassed at public meetings, and in one such case, in Baltimore County, Maryland, a parent was approached by a burly security guard, pushed, shoved, threatened and eventually handcuffed and forced to leave the meeting.
     It is just such treatment that is behind Mr. Baer's lawsuit.  Baer maintains that the three charges of disorderly conduct brought against him were unwarranted and he wants justice for himself and his family.  “After seven-and-a-half months of being pursued by the State of New Hampshire, through the Gilford Police Department and School Board, I am obviously pleased that all charges have been dismissed. Belknap County Judge James Carroll showed me there still is some justice in our system,” he said.  But he makes it clear that this is not about vindictiveness ... it's about standing up for our First Amendment rights.
     I also want to tell you about the story of a 70-year-old Christian florist in Washington state who is being sued for refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.  Although she offered to help the couple find a florist who would service them, that wasn't good enough.  The inevitable lawsuit was filed and Barronelle Stutzman was found guilty of violating Washington's nondiscriminatory statute.
     But here's what is so disturbing to me about this story ... According to The Christian Post, the man filing the lawsuit has been a customer of Stutzman's for the past nine years!  She had built great rapport with the customer and an obviously satisfactory business relationship.  But when she honestly confided that due to her faith, she felt she had to decline his request for his wedding, any friendship went out the window.  The "guilty" sentence and summary judgment could involve Stutzman losing not only her business, but her home and savings.
     The state's Attorney General offered Barronelle a way out of the overwhelming judgment ... simply pay $2001 in fines and legal costs -- and agree to service gay weddings in the future -- and it would all go away.  But Ms. Stutzman is no "luke-warm" Christian.  In response to the Attorney General's letter, she replied with a letter of her own:  "Washington's constitution guarantees us 'freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.' I cannot sell that precious freedom," Stutzman's letter asserts. "You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do."
     She also managed to school the AG on exactly what the word "freedom" means.  "Your offer reveals that you don't really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It's about freedom, not money," Stutzman wrote. "I certainly don't relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important."
     This florist certainly has the courage to stand behind her faith and convictions.  "I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend," Stutzman's letter stated. "I've also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating and having a home."
     Not only is she clear about how she wants to be understood, but she speaks for me and, I believe, many more Christians across this nation when she says, "Our state would be a better place if we respected each other's differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences," Stutzman wrote. "Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible's teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs."  Well said!
     In the stories of these two people, we have excellent examples of standing for our principles and values, as well as our religious beliefs.  It would be simple for each to accept the olive branch that has been offered after the miscarriage of justice against them.  For each, it is not about profiting from injustice, but about fighting back against a system that is one-sided and tyrannical.  It is about standing up for their God-given and Constitutional rights.  It's really that simple ... and that necessary.

Proverbs 25:26   "Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked."
   


   

   

The Indoctrination Of Our Children

     I'd like to know what comes to your mind when you read this radical statement ... You can't make socialists out of individualists.  Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."  How about Constraint? Regulation? Dominance?

     It might surprise you to know that this statement was made by John Dewey, a well-known American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer.  From his statement, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he was progressive, a socialist, and often credited with fathering the 20th century rift between religion and science.  Furthermore, it probably wouldn't surprise you to find out that he was an atheist and a secular humanist, which means he gave no credence to faith as the basis for morality and decision-making.

     Which brings us back to his corrupting influence on this nation's educational system of the last 100 years.  He made the disparaging statement (which I cited above) in 1896, when he signed on to the Humanist Manifesto, a document that elaborated on a philosophy and value system which does not necessarily include belief in any personal deity or "higher power".  Combine this anti-God ideology with socialism and you can easily see why free-thinking and self-reliance could never be tolerated in our society.  And more importantly, you can see how far down that road we've come.

     I have said all this to bring us up to speed in regards to our current situation.  John Dewey's philosophy has been the impetus for our rulers for the last century; while discreet at the beginning, they were successful in stealthily leading us down this path towards collectivism, entitlement and shared community.  But there's a funny thing about Americans.  At the core of their makeup is the unique DNA that just cannot be filtered out.  That's why we see our current state of affairs ... executive orders and blatant violations of the Constitution are becoming commonplace because the remnant of the "historic America" is awakening to the plans to control us, regulate us, and steal our freedoms. 

     We are wise to the out-of-control spending, the over-stepping of authority, and our declining stature in the world.  You can sense the near panic and anxiety that time is running out to completely transform America.  The last great gasp of hope before it all caves in is to gain the hearts and minds of our kids.  If they can indoctrinate them, us older individualists will be dying off, and there will be no one to recall the true meaning of freedom.

     So, how do they accomplish that?  First of all, by implementing programs that show the kids that the government is responsible for caring for them.  Remember when you used to bring your sack lunch to school and every kid had something different to trade?  You could always get a Hostess cupcake in exchange for a bag of Cheetos.  Now, the government prohibits bringing your own brown bag lunch and standardizes the amount of sugar and fat allowed.  In the guise of "healthy lunches", the kids are actually receiving smaller portions of highly processed foods.  But that's not the point ... the real issue is that our kids are getting used to being told what to eat, and discouraged from making their own decisions.

     Secondly, can you remember when your teacher was due respect at school, but your mom and dad were the ultimate authority in your life?  Now, our kids are being told that their teacher is the authority figure in their lives, and their parents aren't really qualified to teach them about the important things .... like sex education, religion and faith, global warming, gun control, free speech.  You name it -- if different opinions from the "accepted government" positions are expressed, students are discouraged and often penalized for voicing them.  

     Your child is being told that opposing opinions are not only invalid, but dangerous to the harmony of the collective.  Anyone hearing such opinions is encouraged to report it to their teacher.  Are your parents, grandparents, or neighbors storing extra food?  Have a concealed handgun license?  Oppose same-sex marriage?  Make "disparaging remarks" against anyone of another race or religion?  Think how easy it is to manipulate kids into talking about what is said at home ... a lecture on love and respecting each other can quickly become a re-education session on why there is no difference between Tommy's two mothers and little Janie's mom and dad.  They are never schooled in the fact that the conception process for Tommy and Janie are profoundly dissimilar -- one is a natural function of our bodies; the other is scientifically generated.   

     And by casting aspersions on parental authority and opinions, it is not hard to conceive that our children are becoming defacto followers of the state; like sheep being led to the slaughter.  Just think about it ... one more generation and the brainwashing could be complete.  

     The question now becomes, "are there enough of us to stall this covert takeover of our kids and our nation?"  Are there any willing to do the hard, dirty work to stand up and voice their God-given right to be individualists, independent, self-sufficient , and able to self-determine their lives?  Tomorrow, I will share the stories of two such people who are refusing to bow to the pressure.  These are the real role models for our youth!

1 Timothy 6:20-21   "... guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith."

Be Careful What You Worship

   

In the wake of the murders in Paris, the world appears to have come together to proclaim their love of liberty, free speech, democracy, and unity.  Media and journalists from around the world have vowed that they will not give way to any attempts to silence their voices.  At the center of the argument for the right of freedom of the press is Charlie Hebdo, the satirical newspaper that, until this past week, was primarily known for its cover.  From what I can tell, it was not hugely successful in France; in fact, most Parisians felt it was distasteful  -- which is a mild word; disgusting is more like it (just google sample covers and you will see why I call them blasphemous) -- and its readership was actually small in comparison to more popular publications like Le Monde.
     But, everyone in Paris recognized Charlie Hebdo's covers because, as an article by Jonathan Scriven in The Spectrum points out, the magazine "satirizes, offends, provokes, shocks, and denigrates .... everyone."  So, because of the attacks on its editorial offices, Charlie Hebdo has become a symbol for liberty and freedom; not only for the French, but the world.  As such, it finds itself with a louder voice and a wider audience.
     The world has now rallied in support of the first Charlie Hebdo cover since the murder of 12 of its staff members.  As CBS News website reports, the cover "shows a weeping Muhammad, holding a sign saying "I am Charlie" with the words "All is forgiven" above him. Zineb El Rhazoui, a journalist with the newspaper, described the cover as meaning that the journalists were forgiving the extremists for the killings."  There is an accompanying two-page spread "claiming that more people turned out [in the public rallies] to back the satirical weekly, "than for Mass."
     While I applaud the new editors of the magazine for defying the efforts of Islamic extremists to frighten them from representing freedom of the press, I think we must make sure that we see the world's new heroes in an accurate light.  I say this, because of the underlying disparagement of religion and faith that may be going unnoticed.  I say this because the lead editorial, in the irreverent manner of the magazine, extolled secularism and doubled down on their goal of ridiculing religion.
     The editors made sure the world understood their position.  The editorial read in part, "For the past week, Charlie, an atheist newspaper, has achieved more miracles than all the saints and prophets combined. The one we are most proud of is that you have in your hands the newspaper that we always made."  Message received.  Even in the midst of such carnage, Charlie Hebdo will refuse to consider the majesty of God.  In fact, they will make themselves "like a god"; feeling themselves worthy of adulation, glorification and praise for what they have accomplished, and for their stand against religion.
      Just make sure you pay close attention to exactly what it is that will be praised and promoted in the coming days.  It is my understanding that the French take great pride in their separation of church and state; in effect, they have developed what might be called "State Secularism".  It is this secularism that Charlie Hebdo advocated and championed.  But have they forgot that they weren't the only victims of last week's horrific slaughter?  There was a religious component to the hate spawned by the Islamists.  It was the Jewish community, and that's an important fact that must not be diminished.
     In our idealism, and in our rush to make this horrendous tragedy about the freedom of expression, doesn't that also include the freedom to express your faith?  We must not ignore that Jews and their faith were a deliberate target of the terrorists.  (In fact, there is some suspicion that the policewoman that was killed before one of the terrorists overran the Jewish supermarket diverted him from his true target:  a nearby Jewish school).  The world also needs to take note of the growing anti-semitism in Europe, and protect the rights of Jews and all faiths, as much as they are willing to protect the freedom of thought and the written word.
     I was saddened to read in The Jerusalem Post, "that the response of some on the radical Left in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre was to attack Jews – once again – and encourage publication of anti-Semitic cartoons, supposedly for “balance.” " So, you see, freedom of religion and religious expression is undeniably under assault.
     When an unabashedly atheistic magazine, such as Charlie Hebdo, freely ridicules all facets of religion, and is raised to nearly Divine status, I can't help but be concerned that their anti-religion agenda is being given too big of a spotlight.  I am not advocating censorship; but neither do I celebrate an anti-God ideology.  So, while I applaud the new leaders of Charlie Hebdo for not bowing to terroristic threats, I want to make sure that we don't lose perspective on the underlying, yet transparent, derision of faith that is receiving so much publicity.  And whether they recognize Him or not, even Charlie Hebdo's staff will one day see Jesus Christ coming with all the angels and all the nations will be gathered before Him.  It will make the crowds that gathered in Paris, on Charlie's behalf this past week, seem like nothing.

Acts 17:29    "Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man."

George Bailey vs. The Greedy Global Elites of the Federal Reserve

     My wonderful husband was the impetus for today's post.  He knows that It's A Wonderful Life is one of my all-time favorite movies.  First of all, I'm a huge Jimmy Stewart fan; and secondly, I love the theme of the movie -- namely that each one of our lives touches so many people; we don't even realize how the world would be different if we weren't in it.
     But as PLW was eager to show me, Frank Capra's brilliantly directed movie has an underlying theme that will have me watching it with new eyes and ears.  Let me explain ... First of all you need to know that Mr. Capra was an extremely patriotic American.  After leaving his native Italy at the age of five, and crossing the Atlantic with his family in the steerage section of a ship, he never forgot the lack of privacy nor the degradation.  And he always remembered his father's exclamation at the sight of the Statue of Liberty:  "Look at that! That's the greatest light since the star of Bethlehem! That's the light of freedom! Remember that. Freedom."
     His experiences as an immigrant, and the hard work it took him to achieve success in the film industry contributed to the themes of some of his most famous movies, including Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Meet John Doe, and the subject of this post, It's A Wonderful Life.  All of his films stressed a deliberate reaffirmation of solid, moral American values, and his strong political views.
     As noted in Wikipedia, "Capra’s political beliefs coalesced in his films, which promoted and celebrated the spirit of American individualism. A conservative Republican, he had railed against Franklin Delano Roosevelt during his tenure as governor of New York State, and opposed his presidency during the years of the Depression. Capra stood against government intervention and assistance during the national economic crisis. A man that had come up the hard way, overcoming the disadvantages of an immigrant background, Capra saw no reason why others could not accomplish success through hard work and perseverance."
     One of the primary reasons that Capra disapproved of Roosevelt's Presidency was the collusion between the President and the Federal Reserve, and the effects upon the banking industry.  And this distrust appears as an underlying theme in It's A Wonderful Life.  Mr. Potter represents the Federal Reserve; both are greedy Elites who control the private banking industry and enslave the populace through fraud, fear, and their manipulation of loans and interest rates, leaving all the George Baileys of the world staring into the abyss of debt and financial ruin.  As a video on YouTube asks, "Do we live in a country that looks more like Pottersville than Bedford Falls?"
     In the movie, Mr. Potter took over the banks, guaranteeing them "sufficient funds to meet their needs"; and declares a bank holiday.  This by the way is similar to what Roosevelt did during the "banking holiday" of 1933.  (And it remains a constant threat during our ongoing crisis). It has definitely been the pattern during our country's history of financial difficulties.   During the financial panics in 1907, the Depression, and 2008, the Elites of the Federal Reserve were able to shut down competitors, and snap up assets at fire sale prices. (For instance, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) closed 465 failed banks from 2008 to 2012. In contrast, in the five years prior to 2008, only 10 banks failed.)  And you might be interested to know that the FDIC is a United States government corporation operating as an independent agency created by the Banking Act of 1933, considered a part of Roosevelt's New Deal.
     Another little piece of history comes from a quote by Charles Lindbergh, Sr., father of aviator Charles Lindberg, and a U.S. Congressman who voted against the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  He accurately portrayed the Federal Reserve as "the strangest and most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed.  The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."  Sounds like the manner in which Mr. Potter wanted to run the Building & Loan upon the death of Peter Bailey, George's father, doesn't it? He proves that the Federal Reserve does not have the same motivation to lend, as do the smaller, private banking institutions.  In fact, Mr. Potter spends the entire movie trying to put George Bailey out of business.
     Would it surprise you to know that there are currently only 6,891 banks in the U.S. -- the fewest since 1934, when the federal government started keeping records.  This figure is down from about 18,000 in the mid-1980's, because small banks are disappearing.  Between 1984 and 2011, more than 10,000 banks, holding assets of less than $100 million faded from the scene.  Nearly 17% failed, while the rest entered into mergers or consolidations.  As George Bailey says, "This town needs this measly institution, if only so people have somewhere to go without crawling to Potter."  In 2014, our choices are rapidly disappearing.  The Federal Reserve is eliminating their competition, just as Mr. Potter tried to do.

     In the film, Frank Capra shows us what can happen to society when there is no longer healthy competition (in the person of George Bailey) to counter the Big Banks; when there are no longer Credit Unions or Savings and Loan companies.  Vice runs rampant, the people are angry and distrustful, and the law becomes corrupt.  Everyone is a renter; no one has a stake in their community.    George Bailey's small Building & Loan is a champion for private ownership of property, and is the antidote to Pottersville (the Federal Reserve's vise grip on finances).  George rightfully asks the Board of Directors, who must decide between Potter's management of the Building & Loan or his leadership ... "Doesn't it make them better citizens and better customers?"  In other words, shouldn't we be encouraging the citizenry to become financially successful, with the opportunity to grow their own wealth?
      But like Mr. Potter, the global Elite don't want to share the wealth; they want to control our level of success, and they are able to do it through vehicles like the Global Carbon tax, or the various trade agreements fostered by the United Nations.  They would not be moved, anymore than Potter was, by George Bailey's passionate plea for the average citizen who does "most of the working and paying and living and dying in the community." George disputes the image that Potter has of the average working citizen as "cattle".  Yet, that is exactly how the Elite see us.
     And if someone like George dares to stand up to them, then they are simply bought off, as Potter attempts to do with George, offering him a high-paying job, expense accounts, trips to Europe, and the ability to buy his wife nice things.  The sad thing is, if George had succumbed to the temptation, the $20,000 per year salary would have been subject to the manipulations of Potter.  As Congressman Lindbergh pointed out,   "They [the Federal Reserve] know in advance when to create panics to their advantage.  They also know when to stop panic.  Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance."  It's likely that Mr. Potter was more interested in destroying George than he was in growing his ability to accumulate wealth and status.
     And look at what the Federal Reserve has done to our abilities to increase our wealth.  Through inflation, the dollar has lost 90% of its value since It's A Wonderful Life was made in 1947, until 2013.  This deliberate control by the Fed makes it nearly impossible for anyone to gain wealth through hard work and saving.  But is that what we really want our lives to be about?
     That's why I love this movie so much!  Because in the end, we see that all of Potter's wealth and control of finances leaves him cold and embittered.  It's the George Bailey's of the world that are truly rich.  George realizes that his family and friendships, and the honest relationships he has made through his life's work are what really counts.
     And I love to think that perhaps Frank Capra was hinting at some future audit of the Federal Reserve in the final scene as George welcomes the Bank Examiner to complete his own audit.  And we must not dismiss the role that prayer played in turning George's life around.  It was the prayers of his wife and children, his mother and family, his friends, and his business associates that stopped Mr. Potter's evil schemes.  You see, God hates prolonged and unjust treatment, and tyrannical control by immoral men.  I know that It's A Wonderful Life is only a movie, and a sentimental one, at that.  But there are some foundational truths in the way it ended.  I believe that our prayers as a nation can effect the end of the stronghold of the Federal Reserve.  God is stronger than any cabal of global elite, and He is Sovereign over the affairs of men.  Maybe there's a reason that It's A Wonderful Life remains at the top of the film industry's all-time movie lists.  Isn't it time that we look to God and return to the values that George Bailey and his "old Building and Loan" represent?

For a concise comparison between Frank Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" and the Federal Reserve, please take a look at the YouTube video, titled "It's A Wonderful Lie -- 100 Years of the Federal Reserve."

Proverbs 22:16    "Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty."



   
   
   

The Spirit of Chanukah

   

     As one who embraces the Jewish roots of my faith, I strive to comprehend what it is God would have me understand about His various Feast days and those holidays celebrated by the Hebrew faithful.  And since the holiday of Chanukah began at sundown on the 16th of December, and will continue for eight days, I want to take a look at its historical significance and how I can relate it to my Christian walk in this current age.
     You will get the fullest picture of the origin of Chanukah by reading the First and Second Books of  Maccabees.  You will not find these books in our modern Protestant Bibles.  They were, however, part of the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language.  This was accomplished in the third and second centuries B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt.  Because Israel was under the authority of Greece for several centuries, the Greek language became more and more common. By the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C., most people in Israel spoke Greek as their primary language.
     As to why the Books of the Maccabees are no longer part of the Biblical canon, and have never been part of the Hebrew Bible, I have no definitive answer.  I am not a Torah scholar, and I am far from all-knowing when it comes to Bible history.  Suffice it to say that for centuries the Books were lost to both the Christian and Jewish faiths due to politics, religious squabbles, and man's interference.  But now there is renewed interest in them for their historical value by both faiths.  Although not considered canon, they are a major contributor to our understanding as to the origin and significance of the holiday Chanukah.  I think you will find fascinating parallels to what we are experiencing today.
     So what do these compelling Books have to say about the time period in which the celebration of Chanukah first began?  Remember, that most people in Israel spoke Greek as their first language.  And there lies a big problem.  How did this happen?  In the wake of Alexander the Great's conquering of the known world, he wanted to "Hellenize" all the vanquished people.  In other words, he wanted to make them as Greek as possible, destroying their native religions and traditions.  After his death in 323 B.C., his empire was split between four of his generals. Two of the ensuing kingdoms (the Ptolemies in Egypt, and the Seleucids in Syria) would greatly influence Jewish history, as the land of Israel found itself situated between these two rival kingdoms.
    Antiochus Epiphanes would become the Seleucid king in 175 B.C., and he was able to take advantage of the division within the Jewish community; between those who wanted to become "more Greek", and those who wanted to maintain "traditional" values and practice their faith according to their covenant with God.  But Antiochus became extremely arrogant, demanding that all peoples unite in a common religion (his), and abandon their traditions and practices according to the Law (teachings) of Moses.
     Not only did the Hebraic Jews, who were faithful to God, find an enemy in Antiochus Epiphanes, but also adversaries among the Hellenized Jews.  To show just how devastating were the policies of the Greek tyrant, Epiphanes, the Jewish religious practices were forbidden; dietary laws were not to be observed; objects associated with Jewish worship were destroyed; the observance of sabbath and feast days was made illegal (punishable by death); circumcision was forbidden; and the Jewish sacred books were burned. In essence, he attempted to destroy the Jewish people and their faith.
      But a recurring theme in the Bible is the fact that God always keeps a remnant who are faithful to Him -- even amidst persecution and apostasy.  At the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, that faithful few can be found in Mattathias, a Jewish priest, and his five sons.  They revolt against the Hellenizing policies of the Greek tyrant, as well as the Jewish collaboration of their own people.  When Antiochus orders a pig to be sacrificed on the altar in God's Temple, Mattathias slays the heretical priest who would do so, and flees with his sons to the hills outside of Jerusalem.  With his ragtag army, he vows to defend his nation and his covenant with God.
     For nearly 25 years, a civil and religious war is waged -- Jew against Jew; between those willing to defend God's covenant against those who would compromise their faith to be "politically correct".  In addition, the maniacal rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jews who dared to revolt against him resulted in massive persecution.  "There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery." (2 Maccabees 5:11-14).

     After the first three years of war, the Maccabees, now led by Judas after his father Mattathias's death, are able to recapture Jerusalem.  When Judas and his supporters arrive at the Temple, they find it desecrated by ungodly pagan sacrifices using pigs, the altar of the Lord destroyed, and a statue of the Greek god Zeus erected in its place.  Judas and his followers tear down the pagan altar and rebuild a new altar, as prescribed by Moses' teachings.  They then purify the Temple and make new sacred vessels; they brought the lamp stand, the altar of incense, and the table of showbread into the temple.  They rededicate the Temple and the new altar to the Lord, on the anniversary of the date it had first been defiled by the Gentile Greeks.
     1 Maccabees 4:56-59 says, "For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar and joyfully offered holocausts and sacrifices of deliverance and praise ... Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days ...".  2 Maccabees 10:7 says, "they lighted lamps and celebrated for eight days in the manner of the festival of Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles)".
    This is the origin of the eight-day celebration of the Jewish holiday of Chanukah. Part of the modern story of Chanukah includes the legend that when the lamp stand (menorah) was lit, the appointed priests discover that there is only one vial of pure lamp oil with the special seal still intact. They use this vial to light the menorah, and miraculously, it stays lit for eight days, by which time fresh pure oil has been pressed and delivered to the Temple.  It is this "miracle" that is also celebrated during the Chanukah festivities.
     Whether or not this "miracle" actually happened is not for me to say.  I would point out, however, that when you read the First and Second Books of Maccabees, you will find no mention of oil being required for the lighting of the "lamps".  And there are some Jewish scholars who will point out that this part of the story didn’t become significant until hundreds of years later. Having witnessed the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD (by the Romans) and two failed rebellions, the Rabbis of the day wanted to de-emphasize the notion of might and fighting – which wasn’t working so well. They added the miracle of the oil to the Oral Tradition to shift the focus toward faith in God.
     I do not wish to take issue with the veracity of the Chanukah "miracle".  It doesn't really concern me or diminish the importance of this holiday.  Much of our Christian "traditions" and holidays have no Biblical foundation, yet can be observed in a way that honors God's Word.  And as I have grown in my desire to know God's Truth (rather than man's interpretation and embellishment), I find myself shunning the commercialization and myths associated with our own Christmas holiday and choosing a "simpler, more honest" celebration of God's great love in sending His Son into our fallen world.
     I know that Yeshua was not born on December 24th, but I can celebrate the fact that He came as an innocent child to bring us salvation.  I do not disparage those who choose to enjoy the lights and glitter and displays of the Christmas holiday; I just look upon those displays differently now -- enjoying them, but without assigning them a heavenly significance.  My emotional response to the holiday is now centered on the "miracle" of my Savior's birth.
     So, too, does the holiday of Chanukah retain it's foundational importance.  I can look upon it as historical fact; when everything that Evil could manifest against God's Holy Temple was washed away; when the Temple was rededicated and created anew.  I can honor the fact that Chanukah mimics an eight-day celebration just like the Feast of Tabernacles, which celebrates when God's presence was with them amidst the Tabernacle in the desert.  I can appreciate it being the "Festival of Lights", noting that the tradition of lighting the menorah celebrates the dedication of a group of faithful Jews to restore their faith, and to protect it against the schemes of the world that would compromise it.  I can celebrate the victory against Evil that Chanukah represents.  Perhaps most importantly, I can celebrate that Chanukah represents religious freedom; to pursue your faith as established by God's holy covenant with all believers.  And I can be thankful that God is connecting the dots for me, and opening the doors to greater understanding of His ways.  There is much to celebrate ... Happy Chanukah!

Revelation 14:12    "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus."

We're Being Played; And It's All There In The Playbook

     If you aren't familiar with Saul Alinksy's Rules For Radicals ... you should be.  Actually, there is more to the title.  A fuller understanding of the Rules is that it is A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.  A true social radical, who wanted complete and thorough social reform, Alinsky was a community organizer from 1939-1971, and his followers are among the most prominent names in politics today.  (Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton viewed him as a mentor before his death in 1971).

     According to his own goals, Alinksy sought to create a guide for future community organizers to use in uniting low-income communities, or "Have-Nots", in order to empower them to gain social, political, and economic equality by challenging the current agencies that promoted their inequality.  The ultimate goal was to successfully unite people into an active organization with the power to effect change on a variety of issues.
     But, now we see that some of these rules have been successfully adapted to divide the nation.  At any one time during the last quarter of a century, some of the 12 rules in Mr. Alinsky's little volume of progressive edicts could be seen in operation.  But I just want to point out that a full onslaught of more than half of them are in plain sight today.

    RULE #5:  "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
•  There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)  
     We have seen this tactic employed in the same-sex marriage debate, for instance.  Paint Christians as narrow-minded and exclusive; as denying love between two human beings.  By ridiculing the Church, urge change and acceptance within the rank and file members.  And to further taunt them, threaten their livelihoods by bringing lawsuits against businesses who refuse to compromise.
     RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
•  They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. 
     Who doesn't enjoy the camera on them as they disrupt traffic, businesses, and law-abiding citizens?  Being part of a "cause" gives meaning to meaningless lives, and contributes to that 15 minutes of fame.
     RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
•  Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) 
     This has certainly been the strategy with the Affordable Health Care Act, Illegal Immigration, Gun  Control, and a number of other issues.  If you think these radical thinkers are responding with new directions and policy changes in "real time", think again; they have anticipated multiple reactions to their tactics, and their game plan was formulated long ago.
     RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”  
•  Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality ... The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
     Again, we have seen that with the Obamacare and Illegal Immigration.  Threaten millions with the possibility of fines, no health insurance at all; or with families being split up and deported to Mexico, and you can convince the public that the lesser of two evils is acceptable.
      RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” 
•  Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. 
     Ferguson, Missouri and New York City are prime examples of how well this rule can work.  If you can make Michael Brown and Eric Garner the underdogs, and push the narrative that the Black race has played victim long enough, you can use the ensuing violence, hatred and division to further your own agenda -- keep the races alienated and isolated, and you can play them off each other to secure and increase your power base.
     RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” 
•  Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. 
     This rule is actually very similar to the Hegelian Dialectic; basically, you create the problem that you have a pre-formulated solution to, and you step in to save the day and solve the (artificial) problem.  Can you see that encouraging race violence might be a way to introduce the militarization of police (never mind that they vigorously deny it, or condemn the police for their actions).  Just a thought...
     Finally, RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
•  Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
     This strategy has been used against The Tea Party; political figures like Sarah Palin; and military leaders like General Petraeus.  Nothing is too underhanded, too harsh, or too unacceptable.  Whatever it takes to win and take the opposition out of the arena.
     So, as you look back over these rules for social radicals, you will see something they all have in common -- and it is more than their similarities to Socialism and Communism.  They all lack a moral defense.  When mankind seeks to change how a society functions through deceptive and immoral means, it results in corruption, godlessness and chaos... just the conditions the Devil loves (and, by the way, to whom Saul Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals -- see above quote).
     The truly sad thing is that far too many of Mr. Alinsky's disciples are teaching on our college campuses, and too many of his graduate students are in positions of power.  We must regain a sense of who we are meant to be, and follow our own set of 10 rules; those carved on tablets of stone nearly 3500 years ago.  They are the solutions to all of society's woes.

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."
   
   
   

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."

Freedom Has Never Been More Precious ... Or More Vulnerable

"Freedom is never more than 

one generation away from extinction."

     We are all familiar with Ronald Reagan's quote from a speech he gave on Labor Day, 1980.  He has been credited with providing one of the most direct warnings to this nation since its inception; but, in reality, this truth is as old as the Bible.  In fact, if you study Reagan's entire speech, you will find an undertone of spiritual meaning in his address.
     But in order to understand how important this advice is, we need to consider the "bigger picture" of just what "Freedom" is, and the consequences of not protecting it.  Reagan gave this speech just before the 1980 Presidential election, when the effects of four years of the Jimmy Carter Presidency were high taxes, high inflation, and 8 million people out of work.  Lech Walesa was leading the way for freedom in the workplace, as he stood up to Poland's Communist authorities.  The tearing down of the Berlin Wall was only a few years in the future ... talk of "Freedom" was in the air.

     Reagan talked of "restoring the American Dream", but he knew that it required more than sound economic policies and a vibrant workforce.  He spoke of "a return to spiritual and moral values, values so deeply held by those who came here to build a new life."  He declared, "We need to restore those values in our daily life, in our neighborhoods and in our government’s dealings with the other nations of the world."  And then he spoke of how this precious Freedom could be lost in a single generation.
     No story reflects this more than the generation of Israelites who lost the freedom of their Promised Land due to unbelief and disobedience.  And I fear that we are doomed to follow the same path.  Like the Israelites, who fled their bondage in Egypt, God led the first oppressed immigrants to the shores of America; to "a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey" (Exodus 3:8).  The founding of this nation was nothing short of a miracle, and God has proved His faithfulness through many marvelous blessings upon this nation.  For a couple of centuries, the inhabitants of this land never doubted the need for God's guidance in securing our prosperity, security, and future.  We enjoyed a Freedom that came from believing in "the Truth"; from relying on The Word, which would set us free from the godlessness of the world.
     But then, like disillusioned Israelites, who listened to the false reports of the 10 spies; we began to listen to the voices of those who told us that God's influence was no longer needed; that the "spiritual and moral values" that President Reagan spoke of, were no longer relevant.  We forgot the lessons of the Israelites, who lost their Promised Land -- in one generation -- because they doubted their essential need for God.
     As long as they had exalted Him, and lived by His spiritual and moral values, they were delivered up to success.  They flourished in their daily lives, their neighborhoods, and their relations with foreign governments -- Reagan knew, that we, too, needed to return to those same values to get those same results.
     But the Israelites soon abandoned their reliance on God and listened to the Deceiver's promises of "false freedom" by way of their own selfish desires, and they sealed their fate.  The generation who turned their back on God and chose to ignore His promises were stripped of their destiny.  I believe that is what Reagan had in mind, when he warned us not to take Freedom for granted.  God has given us Victory in this land.  In record time, we grew to the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth. Do we really think we did that all on our own?
     God blessed this land and protected it.  All we had to do was trust in His guidance and follow His commandments.  There was true freedom in that.  But now we stand on the precipice of losing that precious gift.  It is not only that the number of unemployed Americans is nearly two-and-a-half times what it was when Reagan issued his warning, but we see the destruction of the family, the ruination of our communities, and our loss of standing and respect among our fellow nations.  Our "worldly" freedom is most certainly in jeopardy.
     But it is our "spiritual" freedom that I fear is most threatened.  All we have to do is look at history as it is recorded in the Bible.  Whenever the nation of Israel decided to "go it alone", and that they no longer needed to obey God, it displeased Him and He turned His back.  We deserve no less.  We are showing such ingratitude for the Providence of God's Hand, and I pray that Ronald Reagan's cautionary warning does not become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  As he went on to say in his speech, "We must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children."  In order to accomplish this worthy goal, we must return to God's Truth.  That is where our true Freedom lies, and it's what will save Liberty for the next generation, and generations to come.

Galations 2:4    "But false brothers and sisters, who were brought in secretly, slipped in to spy on our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus, and to make us slaves."

What Are We Looking For?

     It has been one week since the 2014 Mid-term elections changed the political landscape in our country.  Already, it seems that everyone is looking forward to 2016's Presidential election, and prepared to proclaim the next "savior" of America; the man or woman who is most likely to return us to what the country was meant to be.  But do we truly understand how far off track we are, and to whom we should turn?
     At the present, I think a majority of the country recognizes that what we've got now is not working.  But how many of us know that the original intent of this nation was to set up a form of government that would allow its citizens to assume the "equal station" in life that offered them the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness to which Nature's Laws and Nature's God entitled them?  So the question for me, becomes two-fold ..."Do we know our history and what those terms mean; and how does it apply to us, moving forward?"  Ultimately, does our history matter?
     I remember studying the Declaration of Independence in my middle school American History classes.  It always seemed such an important and noble document, and was a reminder of the grave responsibility taken to determine how this nation wished to be governed.  To any serious student, it is apparent that the men given this great task deliberated over how it would be presented to, and accepted, by the people.
     We've all been privy to the argument since the Declaration was written, that the Founders were not Christian men, but Deists.  By the popular understanding of their time, that means they believed that God created this world which included His natural laws of science, morality, and politics; but that He did not actively participate in the affairs of men or nations.  That would mean that our Nation's Fathers gave God no credit for the deliverance of this republic through the trials of its founding, nor would they have thought He had a place in its governance... that He was kind of an absentee Landlord, so to speak. That theory simply does not seem to be supported, based on the following statements:
George Washington:   "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor."  
John Adams:  "As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him."
Benjamin Franklin:  "My dear friend, do not imagine that I am vain enough to ascribe our success [in the American Revolution] to any superiority…If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!
John Jay (First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court):  "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Thomas Jefferson:  "God, who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." 
James Monroe:  "When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good."

     These are just a few of the quotes that are ascribed to the men who ruled us in the dawning days of our Republic.  Do they sound like men who thought God was inactive or idle during the turbulent years of this nation's establishment, or that He did not have a place in the administering of its government?  Although they sometimes used such 18th Century words as "Supreme Ruler" or "Creator", or "Divine Providence", it all points to the fact that they believed a nation could not succeed without the involvement of God; that He should be the ultimate power behind a government. In fact, the language of "Divine Providence" is throughout all the documents and letters of our early leaders.
     That term asserts that God is in complete control of all things ... the universe; the physical world; the success and failures of individuals, AND the affairs of nations.  The Founders believed that the purpose, or goal, of Divine Providence is to accomplish the will of God. To ensure that His purposes are fulfilled, God governs the affairs of men and works through the natural order of things.  They surely believed that God had a purpose for this nation, and they ascribed the miraculous defeat of Great Britain, and the establishment of the United States of America, as a sign that we were preserved for a reason.
     I know that there are many in this country that would dispute this interpretation of the founding of our nation.  I know that not only would they give God no credit for our existence, but they would insist that we were never meant to be governed by God-fearing men. To them, elections are not the territory of God, nor should they be.
     But in my Biblical world view, every nation that has abandoned God or rebelled against Him, and followed their own ways, has reaped the consequences of their defiance and disdain.  Just as Jefferson said, "Can our liberties remain secure, if we do not attribute them to God?"  Unfortunately, I see far too many people looking to find "the Man" to guard our freedoms in the upcoming 2016 election.  And, like Jefferson, I fear that God's justice "cannot sleep forever".

      Many of us are still riding on an "emotional high" from last week, and hoping that we might, at last, be delivered from what ails us as a country.  We are busy casting about for the perfect person to right what is wrong, and to lead us out of this wilderness.  But, I'm afraid we've relied on men for too long; and until we recognize that no man has the answer we need, we will not be delivered from this downward spiral.
     As I watch and hear all the major newspapers, media, and political big shots insert themselves into the contest for the highest office in the land, I am waiting for some recognition that our next President should be a man who will govern "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence" and that he will pledge "his Life, his Fortune and his sacred Honor" for the benefit of the country.
     While our Founders may not have been strict, orthodox Christians, they firmly believed that they needed God to intervene and intercede for them in their time of uncertainty, trial, and war.  Do we need any less?  We have spent far too many elections casting lots, and leaving our decisions up to chance --- It's time to turn to The Word, the Spirit, and Prayer to discern God’s will for our nation.  It may be our last chance.

Proverbs 14:34      "Righteousness dignifies a nation, but sin disgraces a people."