Hands Off The Alamo!

     For several years now, officials in San Antonio, Texas have been working with representatives from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to get the San Antonio Spanish Missions declared as "World Heritage Sites", and they feel victory is near.  This designation would also include the most famous and beloved of all the missions, the Alamo, which sits in the heart of downtown San Antonio.
   

     For those of you who are unfamiliar with the history of the Texas Republic, the Alamo is sacred ground.  The Alamo itself consists of the Alamo Chapel and the surrounding Plaza, where most of the fighting occurred during the 1836 Battle of the Alamo; and where 189 defenders sacrificed their lives for liberty instead of surrendering to the tyrannical Mexican president Antonio López de Santa Anna. The site has since become a shrine, representing those who were willing to fight for individual freedom in the face of collective evil.  Every Texas school child knows the history of the Alamo and millions of Texans pay homage to the site year-round.
     Those who favor making the Alamo a UNESCO World Heritage Site, point to the expected $100 million influx from world tourism, and the chance to become part of UNESCO's mission to "ensure the protection of the natural and cultural heritage of nations"; and to "encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world's cultural and natural heritage".
     But here is my concern (along with others who are a little concerned about giving the United Nations any form of control over our national heritage sites):  when a country allows a historical site to be declared a World Heritage Site they must agree to sign on to the international treaty, known as the World Heritage Convention, and to agree to "establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites."
     As expected, when a site becomes part of the UN's World Heritage organization, there is a manual to follow.  The manual states that it is “the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate” in managing World Heritage Sites, meaning that bureaucrats from foreign countries could well sit on a Board and determine the Alamo’s operation.  One of the “protection obligations” of a World Heritage Site is the requirement to “use the World Heritage logo,” meaning that the Alamo Plaza would be adorned with UN symbols.  And to me, the most disturbing facet of this whole idea is that the UN flag would fly over the Alamo, among the most hallowed ground in all of Texas, and a symbol of the rugged individualism and love of liberty that personifies the history of our great state.
     I'm sure it won't surprise those of you who are familiar with the UN's Agenda 21 policies to find that the manual also suggests strategies for restricting public access to heritage sites due to “environmental concerns” under the guise of “sustainable” tourism, both familiar buzz words reflecting Agenda 21 goals.
     But once again, I was flabbergasted to find that this attempt is nothing new; and in fact, there are already quite a few of our most treasured historical sites that are now flying the UN flag.  For instance, did you know that the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, and the Grand Canyon are UN World Heritage sites; or that Mount Vernon, George Washington's home in northern Virginia is vying for a nomination, and both the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma and Martin Luther King's Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery Alabama, have both been placed up for nomination jointly as 'Civil Rights Era Landmarks'?  At this rate, our sovereignty and national identity will be subjugated to a collective heritage belonging to the world.  Is anybody else thinking "One World Heritage"?
     I just think it is incredibly tragic that 179 years after our Texas heroes fought to the death to defend liberty, freedom and sovereignty, that their descendants would so willingly allow another flag to fly over the compound.  Perhaps they need to reconsider the last words from the commander of the Alamo, Lt. Colonel William Barrett Travis, and to rethink their own surrender of the Alamo to the United Nations.

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World—

Fellow Citizens & compatriots—

     I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna — I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man — The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken — I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls — I shall never surrender or retreat.  Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch — The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days.  If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country — Victory or Death.

William Barrett Travis.

Lt.  Col. comdt.

P. S.  The Lord is on our side — When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn — We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves.

Proverbs 19:21    "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand."

   




   




     

"It's About Being An American!"

   

     Believe me, I am not one to repost videos or remarks from Facebook.  But today is the exception.  If you have been reading my blog since its inception, then you know that I have been fortunate enough to train under Travis Haley, a veteran Force Reconnaissance Marine.  I have written about the ways in which he has made me a better person, as well as a better shooter.  I respect his military service, his creativity, his innovativeness, and his code of honor, morals and behavior.
     So, it was with a good bit of interest that I noticed he posted a "selfie" video, so to speak, on his Facebook page, titled "Don't Ask Me Again! Make A Difference."  As soon as I clicked on the video I knew it was not coming from his professional side.  This one was personal!
     He had received a Facebook message asking him his opinion on what our "course of action" should be regarding the incidents in Baltimore and around the country; on racism, to be exact.  The ridiculous charge by the messenger was that men like Travis could "grab their guns and go there, make a huge difference, and stop this."  To say that Travis was taken aback, is putting it mildly.  Anyone who knows him could gauge his reaction by the steely glare into the camera and the set of his jaw.  His response?  "You're ignorant, and a racist a--hole for asking those kinds of questions and making those kinds of statements."
     His anger stemmed from the fact that the person who contacted him insinuated that as a celebrated American soldier, who had fought Evil and terrorists who were trying to take away our freedoms, he would be the perfect candidate to put a stop to what was happening in Baltimore.  But Travis's response was unequivocal ... "These are Americans; we are ALL Americans at the end of the day.  If you are a legal citizen of America, whether you are black, white; whether you are Hispanic, Asian ... it doesn't matter what your race or culture or ethnic background is.  If you are here legally, you are an American citizen."
     As you listen to him explain his theory about anyone who would dare to suggest that it is the role of the military to stop citizen protests, you know where he is coming from.  Those who try to use race or "the color card" to divide, do so to destroy us as fellow Americans.  He pointed out that this tactic clouds the more important point that "American" should be the description by which we all identify ourselves.  As he says, "American ... that's a pretty important word!"  That is what he and his fellow Marines (of all colors and ethnic backgrounds) have fought for.  He charges that Race and Racism is wrongfully becoming the priority -- the focal point -- rather than who we are ... Americans!
     He's tired of people asking him what his stance is on Baltimore, or Ferguson, or the like.  Instead, he challenges us all to stop focusing on the distraction of racism, and to "be significant; get some substance in your life and make a difference."  Basically, he is drawing attention to the fact that every social media site and news outlet is making racism the predominant story!  We should not buy into that narrative!
     As Travis concludes, he points out that we are not born racist; we learn racism.  Instead of waking up each day and embracing this negative persona; drinking the "racist koolaid", so to speak, we should get some substance in our lives, stop making racism the primary issue of your existence, and stop making excuses.
     Believe me, his statement was a bit more colorful than I have expressed here today, but I think you get the drift.  Racism is being used to divide and conquer this country, and we need to do our part to stop the tide and eliminate it from our consciousness and vocabulary.  Our lives should stand for something more important than something so worthless and divisive as racism.
     As a Christian, I couldn't agree more!  And as much as I respect and honor Travis Haley and his bold statement on this issue, there is another man whom I try to model my life after, and His words are even more courageous and indomitable.  He saw us all as only one race ... the human race.  And He made us all in the same image; in the likeness of Him and God, the Father.
     In the end, this human race has been plagued with racism, prejudice and antagonism for thousands of years.  But we don't have to accept that!  We can repent of our discrimination and forgive those who discriminate against us.  Above all else, we can love and respect each other, just as He loves each one of us.  At the end of the day, as Travis said, it really is all about who we are as people; and as my Savior commanded us, we should be kind and compassionate to each other; forgiving each other.  We were made to be better than this, and we can be better than we are!

Ephesians 2:14    "For He Himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility."

Mending Broken Bonds

     I had the opportunity last week to serve as a volunteer at the Second Annual Chris Kyle Memorial Benefit and Auction.  That's a long name for an event whose purpose was to raise funds to serve those who serve us.  Whenever I have been involved with events such as this -- those which are committed to a worthy cause -- there is always a fair amount of drama and egos.  This one was no different.
     But all the hard work and long hours culminated in a dinner and auction that re-focused everyone back on the reason we were all there.  Yes, the weekend was in memory and honor of Chris Kyle (along with Chad Littlefield), but it was the veterans who were in attendance, and who spoke that night, who now resonate in my thoughts and my prayers.  They have given me a new perspective on the relationship between our military and the citizens of this country.
    As the audience listened to the struggles that these men and their wives and families have endured, I began to see a pattern that I was aware of, but had never fully comprehended.  The veterans spoke of their physical scars and injuries, and it was apparent that the struggle to regain some kind of normalcy has been long and tough.  And we're all aware that PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and TBI (Traumatic Brain Disorder) have greatly affected the lives of our soldiers.
     One veteran was there on behalf of 22Kill.com, a campaign sponsored by the  organization HHC (Honor Courage Commitment, Inc), which was founded by a Marine veteran who wanted to make a difference in the lives of returning vets. With the astounding statistic that an average of 22 veterans per day are committing suicide, HHC and 22Kill are committed to changing the negative stereotypes of veterans, and to 1) honor those who serve(d); 2) raise veteran suicide awareness; 3) recruit veteran advocates, aka "Battle Buddies"; 4) educate the public on current veteran topics; and 5) to empower veterans through HHC, Inc. and their programs.

     But with all the emotion and the enthusiasm by the audience to honor and help our returning veterans, I became aware of a gulf, or chasm, between them and us, the average American citizen.  The veterans' speeches just restated a paradigm that I already knew existed.  As they told their stories, it was obvious that they had problems relating to anyone other than their "brotherhood" of fellow veterans.  That is understandable ... no one but a person who has faced combat alongside them could ever fully relate to the aftermath of severe injuries and/or PTSD.
     Yet that does not negate the sincere desire by the average American citizen to express the respect, honor and high regard that we maintain for the country's veterans.  But there always seems to be a disconnect between what we are trying to communicate and how they receive it.  To be honest, more than one has told me that they don't really "need" us to thank them for their service, or view them as heroes.  I perceive that what we think doesn't really matter to them.  We are on different sides of a huge abyss and the separation is too wide.  So, why is there such a divide and such distance between today's veterans and citizens?  Why does this phenomenon seem to have been less during other wars our country has endured?
     As I try to make sense of what I instinctively know is true, a couple of facts boil to the surface.  First of all, our collective memory, as a nation, spans WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Afghanistan/Iraq wars.  As far as the American psyche is concerned, those wars lasted for the following durations:  WW II - 6 years (1939-1945); the Korean War - 3 years (1950-1953); the Vietnam war - 9 years for the direct war (1964-1973); and the Middle East wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - nearly 14 years (2001-present).
     As you can see, our military has been at continuous war for nearly 14 years!  And who is to say how many more years they will be in Iraq and Afghanistan, or what other "hot spot" will require their presence?  Multiple deployments have left our troops constantly on the battlefield.  Unlike WWII, Korea, or even Vietnam (with all its negative connotations), our troops have been gone so long and divorced from their civilian lives and interaction with the homeland for such a long stretch of time, that our common experiences as Americans is disappearing.  It has become an almost "us" versus "them" kind of relationship.
     The sad thing is that, while these veterans are having a difficult time transitioning back into their families and society, we citizens are struggling with how to break through the divide that separates us.  We truly respect their service, and like the veterans from past wars, we want to honor what they have sacrificed.  Yet it has also become apparent that, for many, their service was not done on behalf of "God and Country", as I idealistically hope for; but for the "brother" next to them -- for the ones with whom they identify the most.
     Because of the duration of this ongoing global war, the original reason has become blurred (if not nonexistent); and our veterans identify with the brotherhood of soldiers more than the American population.  The longer we remain at war, the wider the division and the disconnect will become.  In the end, our cohesiveness as a nation will suffer, and the struggle to re-establish an alliance of solidarity will be more difficult to achieve.  We must reconnect the bonds that have been broken!  We can help each other heal the scars of war and reclaim our shared identity as proud Americans.

1 Peter 3:8    "Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind."





   

The Mark of the Beast Is Closer Than We Think

     I know that there are those out there in the blogosphere who reject the idea that technology is bad for us.  They will point to the added convenience and "instant" communication aspects of all of our technological gadgets.  And I realize that I will be called a dinosaur and "out of touch" for not embracing every new app or innovation that comes down the pike.
     I may not be the most savvy techie or eager to be the first in my crowd to own the latest version of anything that begins with an "i", but there's a very good reason.  You see, I can tell where this is all headed, and it's a place I don't want to go.  And you don't even have to be a "conspiracy nut" to get a pretty good picture of what our future holds.
     Great Britain's The Telegraph recently printed a news story by Sophie Curtis about the direction that PayPal wants to take us.  Ever heard of "Natural Body Identification"?  Apparently, it is "a new generation of embeddable, injectable and ingestible devices that could replace passwords as a means of identification."  If you believe the tech giants, there is a massive problem of compromised passwords; with naive and unsophisticated tech users still employing easily hacked passwords such as "123456", or "letmein".
   

Slide taken from Jonathan LeBlanc's presentation, "Kill All Passwords"

     But Paypal's global head of developer evangelism (that's rather strange terminology, don't you think?), Jonathan LeBlanc, thinks monitoring internal body functions like heartbeat, glucose levels and vein recognition can eliminate the need for people to come up with the perfect unhackable password.  It's just the way he wants to do it, that has me creeped out.
     He wants to consider developing devices such as brain implants, wafer-thin silicon chips that can be embedded into the skin, and ingestible devices with batteries that are powered by stomach acid.  Now, he's quick to point out that by talking about new biometric verification technologies, PayPal is not necessarily signaling that it’s thinking about adopting them.  Rather, it hopes to position itself as a "thought leader".  Is that supposed to comfort us?
     They want us to think that it is all about the "evolution" of the password;  that concept will be changing, and all PayPal wants to do is be at the forefront of the developments for that change.  After all, PayPal was a founding member of the FIDO (Fast Identity Online) Alliance, which is an industry consortium launched in February 2013 to address the lack of interoperability among strong authentication devices and the problems users face creating and remembering multiple usernames and passwords.
     PayPal also wants you to know that they were the first to implement fingerprint payments with Samsung ... it's all about removing "the friction" from shopping and making it easier and safer for consumers.   If you believe that, I've got the proverbial beachfront property in Arizona that you might be interested in.
     By now, it should be quite clear that we are edging closer and closer to being controlled as to how we buy and sell.  And if that doesn't ring a bell, then please rush to your nearest Bible and read Revelation 13:16-17.
     Furthermore, there are tech users that are far more savvy than me and they point out the obvious flaw in biometric security devices, namely "there is no advantage whatsoever to using a biometric signal. In fact, it's easier to make a secure key from a series of random numbers and letters because those can be changed. Biometrics CANNOT BE CHANGED - once compromised, they are forever useless. It's like having one password for everything that is the same --- how does that increase security? It doesn't --- it lessens the security."
     Another person showed the flaw in PayPal's argument with this comment:  "This is about tagging you with a tracking device so that the powers that be can better analyze your movement and behavior. It has nothing to do with security or verifying your identity when it actually counts, as in a financial transaction."
     Even I can see the logic in these two arguments against so-called "natural body identification" and biometric verification technologies.  Not that I think it will slow down the "evolution" of ID Security devices.  The time is coming for "the Mark", folks, whether we like it or not.  Just stay alert and aware of the latest innovations, and resist the temptation to bow down at the altar of technology.

Revelation 13:16-17   "And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark,"

Isaiah 1:6-7 Our Detestable Disobedience

From the sole of the foot even to the head 

there is no soundness or health in [the nation’s body]—

but wounds and bruises and fresh and bleeding stripes; 

they have not been pressed out and closed up or bound up 

or softened with oil. [No one has troubled to seek a remedy.]

 [Because of your detestable disobedience] 

your country lies desolate, your cities are burned with fire; 

your land—strangers devour it in your very presence, 

and it is desolate, as overthrown by aliens.

    Isaiah, the prophet, whose name means "Salvation of the Lord" is prophesying to the ancient nation of Judah.  Their generational sins have caught up with them and God's Judgment is upon them.  As Jehovah's spokesman, Isaiah has consistently warned the people that the nation was immersed in sin.  He begged them to repent, and when they refused, he foretold coming destruction.  

     Isaiah prophesied during a time of great political turmoil for Judah; a time when they became embroiled in the conflicts between Assyria and the nations of Israel and Syria.  Isaiah counseled the nation to make no alliances, but to trust only in the Lord.  Isaiah portrays the sovereign rule of the Lord -- not only against His favored people, but of heathen nations, as well. The prophet points out that the Lord uses whom He chooses to execute His purposes; and afterward judges each nation, bringing them to desolation because of their sins. 

     In these verses, Isaiah compares the nation's sins with a sick and diseased body. Their disobedience threatens to be mortal.  From the sole of their foot to the top of their head; from the peasant to the king, there is no soundness, no moral principle, no religion, and that represents the health of the soul. There is nothing but guilt and corruption; the sad effects of man's fall. This passage declares the total depravity of human nature and the decay of a nation. While sin remains unrepented, nothing is done toward healing these wounds, and preventing the fatal effects. 

     This is an apt description of the state of the nation of Judah at the time of Isaiah.  But it could easily be describing the state of the soul of America.  How quickly -- and easily -- we have forgotten that we, as a nation, owe our existence to His providence and protection during our founding.  How careless we have been in safeguarding our God-given freedom and the prosperity that He rained down on us!  How inattentive has the American Church been in teaching repentance, which is at the center of God's terms for reconciliation.  

     While our national sins remains unrepented for, nothing is done toward healing the gaping wounds, and preventing further fatal effects.  No one has troubled to seek a remedy for the sins, or to turn back from them.  Instead we move from abortion in the first trimester to late-term abortions; from approving civil unions between same-sex couples to same-sex marriage.  Our sins mount up, and as the Scripture says, our country lies desolate (the devastating California drought); our cities are burned with fire (Ferguson and Baltimore); strangers devour our land, and we are overthrown by aliens (the amnesty offered to millions of illegal immigrants).

     In the year that Isaiah prophesied, Jerusalem was left exposed and unprotected.  The same can be said of our nation in this time.  Isaiah warns that if Judah would be willing to repent and be obedient, they would eat the good of the land; if they refused and rebelled, they would be devoured by the sword.  We would do well to consider the same warning.

     But the good news --- and there is always good news when the Lord is your rock and your deliverer -- God always saves a remnant to serve Him.  His Mercy will see that those who love and obey Him are not consumed.  We are all guilty of sin and diseased flesh.  But if we repent and accept the sanctifying Spirit of God, our health can be restored.  The same is true of the individual, as well as a nation.  Oh, how I pray for the healing of our blessed nation!

I Grow Weary ... But My Spirit Is Strong!

   

     Like many of you, I look around and there is not much to lift my spirits.  I hardly recognize my country, or the world, for that matter.  I often feel as if I am the only sane person left.  I'm on the outside, looking in at the insane asylum!
     Where I once felt a part of a community of people with common social values and responsibilities, I now find myself marginalized, along with those who reason as I do.  I haven't changed ... the world has!  So how am I (we) to cope?  What are our options?  Do we give in to the cultural war against moral conservatism?  Or do we continue to stand for our beliefs, strengthening those concepts against the rising tide of public opposition and antagonism?
     Let's face it.  It appears as if we are on the losing side in the world's march towards libertine tendencies.  Everything from our politics, to the way we are educating our children, to how we entertain ourselves  -- the world is promoting sex without moral principles and responsibilities, while roundly rejecting accepted religious opinions.  What can I -- one person who expresses herself daily to a small readership -- possibly do to counter the trend towards normalizing immorality?  I don't really think that I am going to be able to change the steamroller that is crushing the foundations of righteous conduct, do I?
     And I will admit that there are days that I feel the weight of trying to fight "the system" and the culture.  I want to retreat and shelter in the shadow of my God and ask Him to just cover me and my loved ones until this all rights itself, or until His Son comes to dispense His Judgment on the wicked ... either one will be fine; I am just tired of being confronted with all the negative headlines and seeing no way out.
     Yet I know that I could never do that.  I am not the only person in the history of the world who was demoralized by what they saw happening around them.  All ancient civilizations have ended up at this point; they lost their moral compass and fractured internally, leaving them vulnerable to dangerous and lethal influences.  It's just my time and my turn.
     So, back to the fundamental question ... what is our strategy to keep from being defeated?  I think we have to come to terms with the fact that we are facing an uphill battle.  Popular sentiment is against us; the courts are certainly against us; and our Churches are not providing much leadership or guidance.  It is up to each and every one of us to strengthen ourselves through the promises that we have been given by our Savior.  We must realize that this life is temporary and our future in this world is compromised at best.
     And if you count yourself as a follower of Jesus, as I do, then why are we surprised, and what do we actually hope to accomplish?  In my mind, it is futile to think we can change things.  Our Holy Book, the Bible, tells us how this is going to play out, and that we are not the winners -- at least as far as this life defines winning.  But Victory is still ours!  And, as the Apostle Paul said, [we are to] "press on toward the goal to win the [supreme and heavenly] prize to which God in Christ Jesus is calling us upward."  You see, it really is "onward and upward" ... and we must stay in the fight, if for no other reason than to encourage fellow Christians who are fearful; or to point the way to the Savior for the blind, the sick of heart, and the lost.  If I can play a part in snatching one soul out of the clutches of Satan, then whatever the future in this world has in store for me will be time and energy well-spent.  I may be weary, but I'm not defeated!

Isaiah 40:29    "He gives power to the faint and weary, and to him who has no might He increases strength [causing it to multiply and making it to abound]."

   
   

Unholy Alliance?

   

     Have you asked yourself why the Pope is so eager to combine his considerable influence with the United Nation's efforts to sell the concept of climate change to the world?  Does it make you a little nervous to hear that the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, spoke at the Vatican Climate Conference? (Sorry, but those words just don't go together.)  When asked about those in the Catholic community who have reservations about the Pope's position on climate change, Ban replied, "I don’t think faith leaders should be scientists.  I’m not a scientist. What I want is their moral authority. Business leaders and all civil society are on board [with the mission to combat climate change]. Now we want faith leaders. Then we can make it happen."  My first thought is, Make what happen?
     First of all, what is Pope Francis's position on climate change?  From what I can glean from other sources, he has preached about the need to protect the earth and all of creation as part of a broad message on the environment.  He has also made statements on environmental degradation and the effects of human-caused climate change on the poor.  And let's face it, it's pretty smart of the UN to use the authority of the Pope to convince the 1,200,000,000 (that's 1.2 billion) Catholics in the world that their fears about global warming coincide with Church doctrine to help the poor, be good stewards of the earth, etc.  See how easily the climate change doctrine could become an actual article of the Catholic faith?
     Now, I must admit that my views on climate change are rather simplistic ... there is most likely a greenhouse effect on the earth that carbon dioxide contributes to, and results in a measure of warming.  But I also submit to the idea that perhaps this is how God designed this planet; He is Sovereign and All-Knowing and I have a pretty good idea the ups and downs of climate change through the centuries are no surprise to Him.  Furthermore, I believe that the NWO Elites saw a "cause" in which they could appeal to the fears and altruistic tendencies of the common man in return for great political and economic gain.  They took an idea with a grain of truth to it and expanded it into a billion dollar enterprise that affords them a great opportunity to control the masses.
     But here is the deal ... Is it really the business of the Pope to stray from the field of faith and morals and wander into the playground that is science; especially when so many of the theories and "scientific data" have been refuted?
     Now consider the words of Connie Hedegaard, Europe's Climate Commissioner:  "Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices.  Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?"  So, do you see that it is really all about energy policies?  See if you can follow the crumbs ....
     The Pope declares that climate change affects the poverty-stricken of the world, right?  But one of the greatest friends of poor people around the world – an estimated 1.3 billion people who lack running water and electricity — is carbon based fuels.  The Vatican and the Pope should be arguing that fossil fuels are the ‘moral choice’ for the developing world for people who don’t have these amenities.  Instead, he is aligning himself with the NWO and Environmentalists to promote energy policies that aren't really in the best interest of the poor.
     I also find it interesting that this Pope is much different than his predecessor.  Pope Benedict suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.  He said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.  Could that be why we saw his abrupt and somewhat surprising resignation?
     I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel that Pope Francis is entering an unholy alliance.  Climate change policies will not help the poor of the world, or developing nations.  There is a hidden agenda and I can't quite see what the final outcome will be.  Is the Pope being used?  Or is he a willing accomplice?  Whichever it is, I am uneasy about a highly influential religious leader combining forces with the UN, which represents "a system" whose soul purpose seems to be to control the lives of all mankind.  Wait a minute ... haven't I heard that somewhere else?

Daniel 4:30   "And the king answered and said, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?"

"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."

These Are The Days of Destruction

     I don't believe that anyone can watch the bedlam that is Baltimore and not grieve our human condition.  To demolish and shatter property and lives for the pure "joy" of destroying them is a picture of a society without a moral code.  While the gangs and hoodlums who roamed the streets of Baltimore, burning and looting, may know the difference between right and wrong, it is abundantly clear that they weren't concerned about choosing wisely, or displaying good or bad behavior; nor did they hold any high principles for proper conduct.
     I am not willing to cut them any slack due to the death of Freddie Gray.  Those who were drawn to the impulse to destroy did not even know Mr. Gray.  They didn't attend his funeral, nor seek to engage in constructive protest of police actions.  Instead they responded to social media provocations to riot and rampage.  Let's be clear ... they were determined to destroy, and complete devastation and ruination was the goal.  The lack of authoritative control on the part of government officials, law enforcement, or parents shows the degree to which we are sliding into corruption, abomination, and wickedness.  The Enemy of God and mankind chortles with glee and satisfaction.

     The figures are devastating:  More than 4,600 people dead. Over 9,000 injured. Eight million affected across Nepal. One million children urgently in need of help.  (Statistics from CNN).  And those numbers are nowhere near the final toll.  Landslides, avalanches, and torrential rain have added to the grief we feel for the humanity of man after the 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck the Himalayan country.

     The capital city of Kathmandu is also known as the City of Temples.  An ancient poet once said, "there are as many temples as head of people can be seen".  Wikipedia lists nearly 200 temples in an area equal in size to two counties in Texas!  While I disparage the anguish of the millions of people affected by the destructive earthquake, my biblical worldview and spirit cannot help but wonder if the price of worshipping foreign gods has not come due on the people of Nepal.  The First Book of Corinthians, Chapter 10, contains a strong warning about the price to be paid for idolizing false gods and provoking God to jealousy.  Is the God of Creation announcing that His final judgment upon this earth is about to occur?
     The Bible also tells us that there will be "distress of nations" on the earth due to signs in the sun, moon and stars.  The blood red moons and the solar disturbances give credence to that prophecy.  Our own nation sits on edge with prognostications of major earthquakes in California and along the New Madrid Fault in the Midwest.  And volcanoes along the Pacific Ocean Ring of Fire are making themselves known ... it sure seems as if the earth and the works that are done on it are being exposed [with the result being our own destruction].  The Ruler of this world and of Darkness waits in anticipation to make his final moves.
   

     And we cannot discuss the destruction of these days without considering the effects of the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.  My opinion will come as no surprise to anyone,  I believe that if the definition of marriage is redefined, it will mean the destruction of the family as God intended it.  In fact, even the term "family" is being redefined as any two people who live together, regardless of their sex.
     But this is what I find interesting ... For the last 50 years or more, Sociologists have pointed to the lack of fathers in the black community as a vital reason for the destruction of the Black Family.  So why is that correlation not continued across the spectrum of all families?  If it is essential for a healthy family to consist of a father and mother, then doesn't it make sense that the union of the two people who create that family be defined as a man and woman?  Doesn't it seem that simple?
     Yet our very churches no longer seek to encourage the family unit.  They increasingly model themselves to the whims of society, with no regard as to the morality or sinfulness of societal self-indulgence.  Humanism has become the new religion of this Age; the human perspective has become more important than the Divine.  Human beings know what they want and what is good for them; there is no need to subject the desires of the flesh to the standards of a diminished God.
     And this summer the highest court in the land will determine the standard by which future marriages and families in the entire country will be defined.  Sadly, I do not have great hope that their decision will be pleasing to the God I serve.  Compromise has become the byword, and unfortunately, that concession will seal our destruction, both as a nation, and as Christ's Church.  Score one more for Satan in his cosmic battle to control this realm.

     The definition of Destruction is as follows:  a)  the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired;  b)  the action or process of killing or being killed;  c) a cause of someone's ruin.  Look carefully at each of these three meanings ... you will find Baltimore described in the first; Nepal in the second; and our nation in the third.  Is it as apparent to you, as it is to me, that these are the Days of Destruction?  Pray for God's mercy to keep us from destroying ourselves!  Lord knows we are due His Destructive Hand!

Matthew 10:28    "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

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

     Let me be clear ... I am merely a simple woman who relies on my spiritual discernment to instruct my thoughts and opinions.  I do not claim to be perfect, but when I hear something more than once on the same day, I tend to see it as an affirmation of something that is, at the least, reasonable to consider.
     Yesterday, on the front page of the Drudge Report was an article titled, "The Odd Tactic of Giving Baltimore Protestors 'Space' to Destroy".  Also, yesterday, I heard a recording from Bastrop, TX, in which a spokesperson at a meeting between the public and officials with the Jade Helm military exercises announced that "space would be given to both protestors and those who wish to destroy".  That just seems so counter-intuitive to the nature of peaceful protest, does it not?  So why would this particular terminology be used?

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

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