Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Were the Early Christians Socialists?

2010-09-08T13:51:00.002-06:00

As someone who places tremendous value on the liberty we have in Christ Jesus, I am always troubled when I hear it said that the believers in the book of Acts were socialists. This claim is based primarily on the following passage: "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need" (Acts 2: 44-45).

At first glance, the verse appears strikingly similar to a slogan popularized by Karl Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto and was one of history's biggest proponents of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." But there is a vast difference between the socialism propagated by Marx and the type of communal living practiced by the Early Church. As noted by Anthony Randazzo, director of Fiscal Studies at the Reason Foundation, "[the believers'] actions flowed from their own free will. Believers were free to sell as much or as little of their belongings to participate in the community as they wished. We see this in Acts 5:4 when Peter tells Ananias that he was free to use his wealth however he chose. The land was at his own disposal" ("Was the Early Church Socialist?", http://www.crosswalk...ntary/11584245/).

Under socialism as envisioned by Karl Marx, there is no free will. The 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto are completely antithetical to the liberty that believers have in Christ. Among other things, the Manifesto calls for the abolition of private property and all rights of inheritance, as well as the confiscation of property belonging to emigrants and dissidents. It also calls for a progressive, graduated income tax, which essentially punishes those in society who are the most productive.

In contrast, no New Testament writer ever called for the confiscation of private property by the state; neither is there any verse in Scripture seeking to abolish the right of parents to pass on an inheritance to their children. When it comes to taxation, the Bible never calls for a graduated income tax and even warns against choosing rulers who would burden the people with oppressive taxation (see 1 Samuel 8:15).

In his masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky writes, ". . . socialism is not merely the labor question, but it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism today. It is the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth but to set up Heaven on earth."

Health Care Reform: WWJD

2010-03-25T15:50:00.006-06:00

For people on Facebook or Twitter, the debates raging through cyberspace since last Sunday’s historic health care vote have probably put many friendships to the test. Emotions have run high on both sides, and even those united through their relationship with Jesus have found themselves divided on this hot-button issue.

After accusing Christians who oppose federal health care legislation of not caring about anyone but themselves, one Facebook friend asked a salient question: “What would Jesus do?” Her assumption was that Jesus would have supported the federal government’s takeover of our nation’s health care system—that He would have endorsed a plan that forces individuals to purchase health insurance, taxes their neighbors to subsidize it, and imposes fines, penalties and jail time on those who are unwilling or unable to comply with the bill’s requirements.

Quite frankly, it astounds me that anyone who claims to know Jesus would even entertain the idea that He would have used the power of the state to compel my neighbor to pay for my medical treatment—that He would force my fellow citizens to provide for any of my needs.

Reading the gospels, we know full well what Jesus did whenever He saw a need. He healed the sick, fed the hungry, mended broken hearts, and raised the dead to life. He befriended those who were despised by the religious leaders of his day, and He preached the forgiveness of sins to all in need of redemption.

Freely Give

Whenever Jesus saw a need, He met it. And He commanded His disciples to follow His example, reaching out with love and compassion to the “least of these”—the poor, the sick, the lame, the orphans and widows: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Feely have you received, freely give” (Matthew 10: 8).

In light of Jesus’ command to “give freely,” can we honestly believe that He would endorse any legislation that forces people to be charitable by taking their property—including the fruits of their labor—and giving it to others under the threat of deadly force?

Ultimately, the government enforces all of its mandates with brutality. You comply, or you are arrested and prosecuted. If you resist arrest, lethal force is used against you. Is this the kind of "charity" Jesus taught His followers?

In the article, “Is Scripture Statist,” David Puller writes:

Jesus preached about living a holy, virtuous life, and unhesitatingly rebuked sinners. But at no point did he suggest that it was acceptable to use force to compel virtue. Christ commanded the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor (Luke 18:22). But he did not rob the rich man’s house and redistribute his goods. . . And the teachings of Christ themselves provide no endorsement whatsoever for state redistribution. The earliest Christians understood this. The Apostolic-era church never forced people to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and nothing in the New Testament suggests that the church used force to take property from those unwilling to give. (http://libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=469)

As we consider the question “What would Jesus do?” it is equally important to be clear about what He didn’t do. Jesus never used the power of the state to make people do the right thing. He never threatened anyone with fines or jail time for refusing to give to those in need. He did not appeal to Caesar to raise taxes in order to care for the poor, the sick, or the lame.

Worshipping the Secular State

Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus ever encourage people to look to the government to provide for their basic necessities, since this would elevate the secular state to the level of godhood. Instead of relying on government to meet our needs, we are to trust God to supply what we need. “And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19).

As soon as believers start demanding that government provide for needs such as health care, food, or housing, they enter the realm of idolatry. The One who gave us the Lord’s Prayer would never tell His followers to look to the state as the source of their daily bread or any other necessities that God promises to provide.

In his book Idols for Destruction: The Conflict of Christian Faith and American Culture, Herbert Schlossberg aptly notes, “Looking to the state for sustenance is a cultic act; we rightly learn to expect food from parents and when we regard the state as the source of physical provision we render to it the obeisance of idolatry.” (http://www.amazon.com/Idols-Destruction-Conflict-Christian-American/dp/0891077383)

Condoning Theft

Since government produces no wealth, it can give away only what it takes from others—either through the threat of fines and imprisonment or through brute force. When I insist that the government provide me with free or subsidized health care, I am really asking the state to steal from my neighbor to give it to me. Is there any biblical basis to believe that Jesus would condone this type of theft—that He would ask people to steal from their neighbors in order to receive a benefit?

Jesus came to set captives free. He died to redeem us from the curse of the law. As His disciples, how can we possibly believe that He would have us use government force to heal the sick or care for those in need?

Is forcing our neighbors to be charitable really what Jesus had in mind when He spoke about caring for the “least of these?”

Rendering Unto Caesar?

2010-03-14T09:13:00.009-06:00

As a Christian who has spent most of my adult life advocating for tax reform, I am always saddened when pastors interpret Matthew 22:15-22 as giving Caesar unlimited taxing authority. I heard one pastor say that based on Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ question—“Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?”—Caesar could take it all.

I believe that Jesus’ statement, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s,” is not so much about taxation as it is about giving God His proper place. A Pharisee living during the time of Christ would have understood that everything in existence belongs to God. Therefore, only God can rightfully lay claim to everything we earn and everything we own.

God Owns It All

This is why the Pharisees left Jesus and went away after hearing His answer. Their attempt to trap Him had failed, because Jesus elevated the discourse beyond the realm of taxes, reminding them that one’s primary loyalty, allegiance, and financial obligation are to God. When it comes to rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, the Scriptures make it clear that no earthly government can rightly demand everything from us, since it all belongs to the Sovereign Lord who created all things and for whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16, Exodus 19:5, Psalm 24:1-2, Haggai 2:8).

Using Matthew 22:15-22 as a proof text for the government’s taxing authority seems to miss the heart of what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees. Wikipedia puts it this way: “One interpretation of Jesus’ words was that he was making an analogy—the coin is made on the orders of the emperor and is stamped with the image of the emperor, and the emperor may call on you to give it to him in tribute; by analogy, you were made by God and in God’s image, and you must therefore devote your life in tribute to God, rather than Caesar.” Moreover, if the Pharisees really were trying to trap Him, they may well have expected Him to come out against paying taxes to Caesar.

Wikipedia also notes that Jesus’ interrogators “were unsuccessful in getting Jesus to unambiguously come out either in favor of paying the tribute to Rome or in favor of tax resistance. Advocates for either argument could interpret his words in either way. Time has not resolved this ambiguity, and people continue to interpret this passage to support positions that are poles apart.”

A Biblcal View of Taxation

Because a government’s taxing power can be used for good or evil, it is important to note that not all forms of taxation are biblical or just. Therefore, believers are responsible for holding Caesar to account in this area. Certain passages of the Old Testament—including Exodus 30:15—suggest that taxes ought to be uniform, which is not the case with the graduated income tax—one of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto—currently used in America. Also, since the government’s role is to promote the general welfare, excessive and burdensome taxation is incompatible with a biblical view of government. The Old Testament suggests that oppressive taxation inevitably leads to rebellion (1 Kings 12:1-19).

From the standpoint of Scripture, it can be argued that oppressive taxation is a type of theft—and therefore a violation of the eighth commandment against stealing (if individuals are prohibited from stealing, it would follow that governments are as well). Moreover, taxes that are used to fund entitlement programs/transfer payments may violate the tenth commandment against coveting what belongs to our neighbors.

Is Caesar Equal to God?

Under the Law of Moses, God commands His people to give Him 10 percent of the increase of livestock and agricultural produce; a secular government would hardly be justified in demanding more than that, or even as much as 10 percent, since that would imply that Caesar is equal to God. Yet in America today, the tax rate on the average citizen is far higher than that; two years ago, it hovered around 32 percent, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Paul’s language in Romans 13:7 suggests that the requirement to pay taxes is conditional. He says, “If you owe taxes, pay taxes.” An open-ended interpretation of Matthew 22:15-22 would imply that citizens are obligated to turn over whatever money Caesar demands, regardless of whether they are legally obligated to pay it, and that is obviously not true. Under the U.S. system of government, there is no obligation to pay whatever tax the government demands, but only what is constitutional.

Indeed, one could legitmately ask if followers of Jesus owe taxes to a government that is using their tax dollars to fund immoral or wicked activities, such as mass murder or unprovoked wars of aggression. For instance, would it have been right for Christians living in Nazi Germany to pay a tax specifically earmarked to build the gas chambers where the Jews were put to death?

Stealing Widows' Homes

In America today, the federal government spends trillions of tax dollars on programs and activities that were never authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps even worse, the Internal Revenue Service routinely violates the due-process rights of countless Americans who have dutifully paid their taxes. I know of hundreds of cases where innocent people were wrongly assessed for taxes they never owed, including Linda Sanders, a single mother whose home was seized by the IRS due to a clerical error. Linda spent 13 years fighting the IRS in court and was denied justice at every turn. Her heartbreaking story is chronicled in her book, Exposed! Tyranny on the Bench.

What happened to Linda—and others like her—is a gross violation of Isaiah 10:1-2: “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey,” and Mark 12:40: “They devour widows’ houses…”

A Rouge Agency

In far too many cases, people have been driven to suicide as a result of the vicious enforcement tactics of the IRS. According to author Martin L. Gross, “The IRS has power and privileges not granted to anyone else in America, including the president.” Shirley Peterson, IRS commissioner under President George Bush Sr., called the current tax system “an unwieldy, inefficient, ungodly mess.” IRS employees are granted time off and promotions based on the amount of property they are able to seize from taxpayers. A careless interpretation of Matthew 22 makes it easier to gloss over such abuses.

In 1997 congressional testimony, Houston IRS agent Jennifer Long explained that the agency teaches its employees to use "tactics ... which appear nowhere in the IRS manual... to extract unfairly assessed taxes from taxpayers, literally ruining familes, lives, and businesses—all unnecessarily and sometimes illegally."

A Broken Covenant

Finally, under the system of self-government established by our Founding Fathers, there is no “Caesar” in America. The American people are the ultimate governing authority, and all public servants are supposed to work for us. The U.S. Constitution is the covenant between the American people and our political representatives; public officials who violate the Constitution are defying the law of the land and are thus guilty of disobeying Romans 13:1-2. Where is the outcry?

As Americans, our Christian responsibility to government consists in holding our representatives accountable in terms of their obedience to the Constitution. Tragically, we have failed miserably in this area and have allowed the federal government to usurp vast powers far beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution. No-knock raids, government seizure of private property without due process, public funding of abortion and obscene art, and warrantless surveillance of American citizens are just a few examples.

As Tim LaHaye wrote in the foreword to Where Are Today’s Daniels, “If the oppression now creeping over the country continues, Christians can blame no one but themselves for allowing the government to become the final authority over us.”

The Obama Deception

2009-08-13T12:29:00.002-06:00

Produced by award-winnng documentary filmmaker Alex Jones, this video is a must-see for anyone (right or left) who thinks that Obama is only doing what he believes is best for this country.

Here's a summary: "The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people. The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery."

And for those who think that a Republican president would have been any better, the video will put that belief to rest as well!

Did the pioneers worry about their right to affordable health care?

2009-07-31T12:24:00.002-06:00

Lately I’ve been reflecting upon the American pioneers and what they would think of the current debate concerning government-run health care. Perhaps they should have lobbied Congress to build publicly funded hospitals in the wilderness so they could have had better access to medical care. Or, maybe they would have preferred personal body guards, paid for by taxpayers, to protect them from wild animals or from attack by bandits. And let’s not forget those pioneers who lost their crops to locusts, famine, or floods. They sure would have benefited nicely from a $7 or 8 billion bail-out package!

I guess what I’m saying is that much of the political debate on Capitol Hill these days illustrates that Americans have lost (or forsaken) the pioneer spirit that made this country great. Because we don’t have to contend with the difficulties and dangers that our forefathers faced just to survive from day to day, many of us have gotten used to thinking of the things we need—or even want—as rights, whether it’s health care, a college degree, or affordable housing.

For nearly 200 years of our nation’s history, most Americans did not consider those things to be their birthright. They embraced their freedom to pursue happiness without demanding that government provide it for them at taxpayers’ expense. Even during the civil rights movement, America’s oppressed minorities gladly fought for equal opportunity and equal protection under the law without demanding equal results.

In addition, prior to the middle of the 20th century, most Americans did not lobby their government to redistribute other people’s wealth, yet they were known as some of the most generous people on the planet. And Americans are still generous. According to Operation Kids, “In 2007, they gave more generously than they ever had before—to the tune of more than $3 billion dollars.

“[A report from Giving USA Foundation] indicated that while that number had fallen during the economically turbulent months of 2008, that figure still remained above $3 billion, a generous amount, given that Americans as a whole ‘lost 2 percent of their wealth last year.’”

At various times in my life, I have been without things that I needed, including health insurance and the ability to pay for health care. But I never for a moment believed that I was entitled to those things, even though life was sometimes difficult without them. I knew that if I demanded that the government provide for my physical or financial needs, it would be at someone else’s expense.

While serving as congressman in the 1830s, Davey Crocket, a true frontiersman, said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” It is my hope that the American people will take these words to heart when congress resumes in September to vote on the president’s health care bill.

Benefiting at another’s expense

2009-03-13T13:06:00.003-06:00

I just got my paycheck today and saw that I am about $20 richer than I was last pay period, before Obama’s stimulus package went into effect. My unemployed husband and I sometimes struggle to make ends meet, so any extra money that comes in truly is a blessing from the Lord.

But I am not doing cartwheels. Why? Because two of my friends, a married couple with two incomes, are paying dearly for the tax break I was given, to the tune of a $7,000 tax increase per year. Small business owners also are footing the bill for Obama’s apparent largess.

In addition, my friends’ children and grandchildren will be paying for Obama’s $800 billion in deficit spending for years to come.

Currently, U.S. federal debt obligations exceed the Gross Domestic Product not just of the United States, but of the entire world. “The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligations embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account,” says economist John Williams, quoted in WorldNetDaily.

“In the seven years of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) reporting, we have seen an annual average deficit in excess of $4 trillion, which could not be possibly covered by any form of taxation," says Williams.

“Put simply, there is no way the government can possibly pay for the level of social welfare benefits the federal government has promised unless the government simply prints cash and debases the currency, which the government will increasingly be doing this year,” Williams says.

Last month, Christianity Today’s liveblog cited an anti-stimulus ad that had Christian economic professors among its signatories (“Losing Faith in the Stimulus”). A number of readers attacked the professors for their stand. One person wrote, “I know some people in need are in that position because of their own mistakes and poor choices, but I don’t see that as a Scriptural reason not to reach out in compassion.”

My question is this: how is it “compassionate” to demand that future generations pay for other people’s poor choices? Furthermore, as Christians we need to consider the stewardship implications of passing on such onerous debt to our nation's children.

Would I prefer not to receive that extra 20 bucks every two weeks? Let’s put it this way: I would prefer to live a country where all people are free to keep the fruits of their labors, so it can be saved, invested, spent or given away as each family sees fit.

The Greatest Social Need

2009-01-20T08:17:00.002-07:00

A timeless reminder from Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/january/20.18.html

May Christians Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

2008-11-06T11:56:00.002-07:00

The following is an excerpt from an article that was written before the outcome of Tuesday’s elections, but I feel it is worth posting. For the full article and URL, click here: http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/sen_john_mccains_record_on_lif.aspx

Sen. Barack Obama’s ardent support of abortion is evil. Yet Sen. John McCain’s less active support of abortion is evil as well. While Sen. McCain’s advocacy for abortion is less pronounced than his opponent, he nonetheless condones the shedding of innocent blood in some circumstances — something God Almighty abhors (Proverbs 16:16-17).

In view of this fact, many well-thinking Christians have asked this important question: Should we vote for the lesser-of-two-evils in this circumstance? If we believe Sen. Obama will vociferously promote abortion, while Sen. McCain will be less of an advocate for the murder of the innocent, should we cast our vote for the latter?

To answer this question rightly, we must turn to God’s Word, the ultimate source of authority that gives us everything we need for life and practice — including a theory of ethics on how we should approach choosing civil magistrates:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

In considering our duties at the ballot box, we cannot appeal to our human autonomy in deciding this question; we must bow our knees to God’s inscripturated Revelation. William Einwechter states the matter succinctly, “In voting, the question is not, ‘What makes the most sense to me?’ but rather, ‘What does God’s Word require of me?’”

In short, whatever God says goes. To quote the prophet Moses, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

So just what are the biblical requirements for choosing civil rulers? To explore this question in detail, we would urge you to examine William Einwechter’s excellent article, “Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates.” For the purpose of this discussion, we offer these brief thoughts.

Exodus 18:21 is among the primary biblical texts that establish the requirements for choosing magistrates:

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

One of the chief qualifications for rulers found in this passage is that they “fear God.” Elsewhere, King David affirms: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Samuel 23:3).

How do we know if a respective ruler fears the Lord? Among the most important indicators are these: that he hates evil (Proverbs 8:13) and is committed to executing justice as God prescribes (Romans 13:3-4; Psalm 82:1-4; Jeremiah 22:1-3; 7:4-7).

One of God’s primary mandates to civil rulers is to protect the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 19:10; Exodus 23:7) and to punish those who take life unlawfully (Genesis 9:6; Deuteronomy 19:13) so that evil will be purged out of the land.

A God-fearing ruler will hate what God abhors — including the murder of the innocent (Proverbs 16:16-17), and he will not hesitate to use every means within his duly-constituted power to protect the lives of the defenseless (Proverbs 24:11-12).

Civil rulers who support the shedding of innocent blood invite God’s judgment upon a nation (2 Kings 21:2-4; 24:2-4) and should expect His wrath as punishment (Psalm 106:37-42).

Being mindful of these truths, our nation’s founders wisely recognized the right to life as an inalienable right in our Declaration of Independence, and the framers of our Constitution affirmed this same principle in the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution sought to further protect this inalienable right.

The legal sanctioning of abortion as well as embryonic stem cell research directly violates our nation’s charter documents, but more important than this, these heinous practices violate the fundamental order that God established for His creation and commanded civil rulers to oppose in their jurisdictional posts as God’s ministers of justice (Romans 13:3-4; Jeremiah 22:1-3; 7:4-7).

What then of the lesser-of-two-evils argument? If only two candidates appear to have a reasonable chance of gaining the presidency, should we support the one whose advocacy of the evil practice of abortion is likely to lead to fewer unborn babies killed?

The answer is no, for God holds men accountable for how they steward their individual vote — whether or not they cast it for a biblically-qualified candidate — not for the outcome of an election.

Man’s whole duty is to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). We are thus not permitted to break His law in seeking to influence the outcome of an election, even when we believe that our vote could “save more lives.” The Almighty Sovereign governs the affairs of men and nations (Daniel 4:34-35; Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 46:9-11); and it is He, not finite voters, Who ultimately raises up and brings down the rulers He wills should rule (Daniel 4:17, 25, 32; Psalm 75:6-7), whether they be good (Psalm 78:66-72) or evil (Exodus 9:14-15).

When it comes to our vote in an election, the standard is clear: Duty is ours; the results are God’s. Voting for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate is not a lawful option for us to pursue. God will raise up whom He wills; let us trust Him to decide the election as He deems best.

While their advocacy varies by degrees, both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain support abortion in some circumstances and are thus disqualified from receiving our vote to serve as rulers in the civil realm. Neither man “fears God,” and neither man should receive the support of God-fearing Christians.

Might abortions increase if Sen. Obama is elected as America’s next president? Quite possibly. But as believers, we must fear God more than man. We must fear violating the standards established by our great Creator in how we cast our vote even more than we fear the potential results of a Barack Obama presidency.

Such is our duty before the Lord.

How can we vote for evil and expect to get good government?

2008-10-27T12:39:00.002-06:00

Over the years around election time, I’ve heard many conservative Christians grudgingly state that they plan to “hold their noses” and vote for what they consider the “lesser” of two evils. This year is no different, apparently. When faced with the possibility of an Obama presidency, many evangelicals acknowledge that John McCain’s record on promoting righteous government hasn’t been much better. They realize that while McCain claims to be “proudly pro-life,” he has hardly been stalwart in his defense of the unborn, our nation’s most vulnerable citizens. He did not support Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, which would have ended abortion.

McCain also has stated that he does not favor overturning Roe v. Wade and has been endorsed by the pro-abortion PAC Republicans for Choice (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker-republicans-for-choice-endorse-mccain). In addition, McCain was a member of the infamous Gang of 14 senators whose purpose was to oppose pro-life, strict constructionist judges (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/74897dbc-8491-49fb-a5ff-e7ca7b1c9ac5). He voted for pro-abortion Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and has voted many times to increase federal funding for abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

Considering that many who plan to vote for McCain will do so because of his perceived commitment to family values, McCain is far from being a paragon of virtue in that area. His biographer, Robert Timberg, chronicled McCain’s numerous sexual affairs with subordinates both when he was an executive officer and later squadron commander in the U.S. Navy. Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief, 2-1-08, states: “McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident. He then divorced her and married his multimillionaire mistress…”

When it comes to governmental ethics, McCain’s record has been abysmal. He was a ringleader of the infamous Keating Five ethical scandal, which cost taxpayers $160 billion and through which many elderly investors were defrauded and lost their life’s savings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five). He also used his influence as senator to have his POW records permanently sealed from public scrutiny, most likely due to allegations that he collaborated with the enemy (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/). Even more reprehensible, McCain, along with Senator John Kerry, blocked congressional efforts to locate abandoned POWs who were still being held prisoner in Laos and Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_in_action).

Finally, McCain supported the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, showing that he is willing to force American taxpayers to pay for the poor choices of wealthy corporations.

Conservative Christians are quick to point out all of Obama’s flaws (and they are many) but are strangely silent when it comes to the evil McCain has done while in public office. When they are confronted with these things, the typical response is, “But we HAVE to vote for McCain to prevent Obama from becoming president!” Their support for McCain is based on nothing more than fear. They are so afraid of a greater evil that they are willing to vote for a lesser evil. But to me, choosing our leaders out of fear does not seem to be compatible with God’s standard, the Bible. 2 Samuel 23:3 states, “He that rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” Since God wants rulers to govern justly, it follows that He expects His people to choose righteous leaders when given the opportunity and not to settle for any kind of evil, whether greater or lesser.

What few conservative Christians are aware of today is that there is a truly righteous candidate running for president: Chuck Baldwin, a born-again Christian and pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He is running on the Constitution Party ticket, the fastest-growing third-party in America (to find out more, visit www.constitutionparty.com). He has been endorsed by Republican Congressman Ron Paul, is a staunch defender of the unborn, and fully supports the U.S. Constitution. Unlike McCain—who voted to give Social Security dollars to illegal aliens and whose Hispanic outreach director, Juan Hernandez, is known for his “Mexico First” declarations—Baldwin will protect our borders and has said that his first official act as president would be to free border agents Ramos and Compean.

When I tell my fellow conservatives that they have the chance to vote for a genuine man of God who is unequivocally committed to the ideals of individual liberty, limited government, and America’s national sovereignty, they tell me to “get real” because Chuck Baldwin has no chance of winning, as if choosing goodness is supposed to be based on whether it has a “chance” of prevailing (if America’s founders had thought that way, we’d still be subjects of Great Britain). Some Republicans have told me that if I vote for McCain, I would really be voting for Sarah Palin, even though she has stated that if McCain enacts any public policies that violate her principles, she will be forced to stand by his decisions.

This past Saturday, a volunteer for McCain’s campaign stopped by our apartment, asking my husband and me if the Republican Party can count on our support for McCain. We told him that we had already voted for Chuck Baldwin and explained why (and there are many more reasons than those I’ve listed here). The volunteer said that he was aware of all of McCain’s deficiencies and agreed with us that Baldwin would be a much better choice. He admitted that the only reason he was supporting McCain was out of fear of Obama.

If Christians are not supposed to fear the enemy of our souls, why are we so afraid of man that we won’t even consider voting for a truly righteous candidate? Why not choose goodness and trust the outcome to God?

How can we vote for evil and expect to get good government?

For an excellent review of the current political dilemma we are facing in America, check out the following three articles:

Today's Christians: No Hope in God's Way
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080709.html

Three Peas in a Pod
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080516.html

Conservatives Offer No Hope
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080311.html

Urgent message from Focus on the Family

2008-04-30T11:52:00.004-06:00

I don't agree with everything James Dobson says, but this is right on. I urge you to read it and share it with anyone else who cares about our nation's economic future.

Dear Friends:

In recent months, I've become friends with Glenn Beck, one of the few conservative commentators on CNN who also hosts his own national radio talk show. You may have heard me discuss current events with Mr. Beck on a few occasions in the past. I appreciate his firm grasp of the values we hold dear and his ability to use humor to address some very serious issues.
One of those concerns is our national budget, a subject on which Mr. Beck offered some insightful commentary during his CNN program on March 26th. A transcript of those remarks, edited for clarity, is included below. (Brace yourself, because he opened with a scary but phony news story.)

"Right now, we are getting word from my newsroom that says scientists are tracking a large asteroid that appears to be heading towards Earth. Information is coming in right now. Initial reports say the impact will be around the year 2019 and the consequences could be 'catastrophic.'
The president has just released a statement. He will be speaking here in just a few minutes. Apparently his message is, 'The threat is real, it is dire, and we have decided to let the next administration figure it out.'
'Let me ask you something--first of all, there's no asteroid headed our way. If that were real, would you be sharpening the end of your pitchfork and driving to Washington [to demand action from our leaders]? Yes, of course you would. We're going to let the next administration figure it out?
If there was an asteroid [coming our way], we would take care of it. And there is an economic asteroid, and no one seems to care. The Social Security and Medicare trustees--and I use that term loosely because it has the word 'trust' in the center--released their annual report yesterday. The news isn't really good.
This year, 2008, Medicare will pay out more in benefits than it takes in from taxes. Got it? The same thing happens to Social Security in 2017. That's when the government will have to start paying back all the money it has stolen from the people from the Social Security "lock box" [that doesn't exist] over the years, something that could be a little dicey considering the fact--you might have heard this--we're out of money!
By 2019, Medicare becomes completely insolvent. And by 2041, Social Security runs dry.
Great. By most estimates, this is a $53 trillion asteroid.
Now, you find one person--if you can find them, I'll pay you--that's credible on either side of the aisle that disputes the size of this threat or how quickly it's coming. In fact, most would say the dates and the figures I just gave you are conservative.
So, why is it no one's doing anything about it? If there were a real asteroid, do you think we'd allow our leaders to keep passing the next buck to the next administration until we could actually see the flying rock in the sky?
We're not only letting [our leaders] get away with that, we're letting them do something worse. We're letting them actually go out into space, and they're [asking] 'I wonder if we could make the asteroid bigger?'
I mean, they're putting prescription drugs on. We've got billions in bailouts and rebate checks. I'm sorry, this is criminal negligence.
I don't know who people think are going to swoop in and save us from this disaster ... I've got news for you, it's not going to be Congress ... The president is not going to do
it. And believe me, Bruce Willis and Tommy Lee Jones, are going to be a little too old. They'll be on that non-existent Social Security system by then.
Like always, we have to save ourselves. And we have to start right now... "

Glenn Beck is absolutely right. Our political leaders are spending us into oblivion, and guess what? They plan to raise our taxes exponentially so they can waste even more.

One of my personal heroes, Winston Churchill, once said that "for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."1 He was, of course, talking about the economic situation in Great Britain many decades ago. But his words have striking relevance to the United States today and to the scenario described by Glenn Beck on CNN. If you're like most Americans, you filed your income taxes this month. And as you realized just how much of your hard-earned money will go to support the bloated bureaucracy and to an ever growing catalog of entitlements, you may have felt as helpless as a man in a bucket trying to lift himself up--or a scientist watching an asteroid hurtling towards earth while the government leaders did nothing to prepare.

Last month, our Congress passed its proposed $3 trillion national budget for 2009.2 While the headlines of the day focused on the presidential race and the latest Hollywood starlet to enter rehab, the budget received surprisingly little attention. It has frightening implications for all of us.

Thanks to the efforts of liberals in the Senate and the House, you will almost certainly be paying even more taxes next year than you did in 2008. Voices on the Left have long decried President Bush's tax cuts, which they claim favor the "wealthy." But by their reckoning, "wealthy" Americans include those who are barely making enough to scrape by. The Associated Press reported that the Senate's budget would "allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more."3 In other words, congressional liberals are coming after middle-class families with a vengeance.

The budget passed by the House of Representatives is even more damaging, as it effectively eliminates all of President Bush's tax cuts, including the 50 percent reduction that citizens in the bottom tax bracket received when he cut the rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. The House budget also ensures that the "marriage penalty" tax will return, saddling 50 million married couples with an average of an additional $3,000 in taxes for the coming year while those living together without benefit of marriage will pay less. How ridiculous is that? Even more outrageous is the fact that the per-child tax credit will be cut in half, from $1,000 down to $500.4 This is an outrageous assault on the well-being of the nation's families. It is shameful to require moms and dads to pay for useless pork and it should bring howls of protests down on the heads of our elected officials. Instead, liberals in Congress are proposing up to $683 billion in new taxes over the next five years.5 Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the House's budget for 2009 is not that it will increase taxes, but that it will weaken the financial stability of families.

What are elected leaders doing with this additional money? Let's consider a few facts based on past trends:

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than it brought in. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. The national debt is now more than $9,000,000,000,000 (that's $9 trillion) and growing. Even when government officials claim to have a surplus, they still spend more than they get. You and I pay enormous interest on that huge debt. In fiscal year 2006, the U.S. government spent $406 billion of our money on interest payments to the holders of the national debt.6 Alarmingly, we are heavily in debt to the Chinese government, which could "recall the loan" at will and throw the U.S. economy into a tailspin.
The complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 21 megabytes in length and contains more than 7.8 million words. If printed 60 lines to a page, it would fill almost 16,000 letter-size pages. In reality, the exact number of tax laws and codes cannot be ascertained due to constant changes.7
The IRS sends out 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year. Laid end to end, they would circle the earth 28 times! American taxpayers spend $200 billion and 5.4 billion hours working to comply with federal tax regulations each year--more than it takes to produce every car, truck and van in the United States.8
The IRS employs 114,000 people--twice as many as the CIA and five times more than the FBI. A full 60 percent of taxpayers must hire a professional to get through their own returns. Taxes consume 38.2 percent of the average family's income--more than for food, clothing and shelter combined.9

It's not that the government doesn't have enough money--it's that it's mishandling money and spending the lion's share of it in the wrong places. Of prime concern is the issue of "earmarking," which refers to provisions in legislation that direct federal funds to be spent on the politician's pet projects, often in his or her home district. It is called "bringing home the bacon" and is one of the ways they stay in office. Republicans and Democrats alike have been guilty of abusing this practice for years now. At the 11th hour, earmarks are quietly slipped into massive spending bills by members of Congress. Do you remember the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" fiasco? Congress tried to fund a $230 million bridge that led to an Alaskan town of 50 people.10 The funding was ultimately axed--but only after public outrage demanded it.

A few of the saner voices in Congress have called for a serious reform of the earmark system, or even for the elimination of earmarks altogether. But alas, during its budget proceedings, the Senate failed to implement even a temporary ban on this wasteful and irresponsible practice. It's worth noting that the three front-running presidential contenders did, in fact, vote for the temporary ban, perhaps because they are in the spotlight and know how unpopular pork-barrel spending is with the American public. Nevertheless, for the majority of Senators in both parties, earmarks are a sacred cow. Or is that a cash cow? Whatever the case, the effort to end earmarks went down in flames in a 29-to-71 vote.11 Alas, the asteroid is heading our way!

Clearly, our elected representatives do not represent us when it comes to their spending habits. The much-publicized economic stimulus checks that are being mailed out this year will, for all intents and purposes, be sent straight back to the government to help cover the $683 billion tax increase. Meanwhile, hard-working families will continue struggling to make ends meet. Our leaders in Congress continue to play fast-and-loose with our tax dollars because they are so out of touch with what it means to live on a limited income. A recent study from the Center for Responsive Politics found that the median net worth of a U.S. senator is nearly $2 million, while the median net worth of a member of the House of Representatives is more than $600,000.12 Rush Limbaugh has called Congress our "House of Lords," and it's not difficult to see why. And yet these same leaders have the audacity to suggest that people earning $31,000 a year are somehow "rich" citizens who owe the government a larger proportion of their income. Liberals call it "paying your fair share." What this really means is that the big spenders in Washington want to build their version of a "bridge to nowhere."

There is much more that could be said on this point, but I do not have the space to expand on the topic here. The role of the government is discussed in greater detail in Focus on the Family's The Truth Project® DVD curriculum, which offers a biblical view of the government as part of a larger discussion of what constitutes a biblical worldview. In particular, Dr. Del Tackett argues that in modern times, the government has endeavored to take over the role of the church. We believe that God did not institute governments to "save" people, especially in a manner that intrudes on every citizen's God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For a further exploration of this idea, visit thetruthproject.org.

I hope my comments this month haven't left you feeling depressed. I also don't want you to be gripped by fear. You've heard about the 1938 radio broadcast by Orson Welles in which many listeners mistook a dramatic presentation of H.G. Wells' book, War of the Worlds, for an actual news report about an alien invasion. The public panic that ensued was of historic proportions--at least until listeners realized that the radio program was fictitious. Although the economic crisis we are facing is not fiction, it is no cause for panic, especially for those of us who find our peace and security in Jesus Christ. We must not be fearful, but we do need to respond to this impending crisis with concern and a sense of urgency.

Despite our government's flaws, we are still blessed to live in a country in which our voices can be heard and in which we have the right to choose the men and women who will represent us in the corridors of power. Indeed, our elected leaders often "get away" with so much because the rest of us aren't paying attention or holding them accountable. If nothing changes, politicians will grab more and more of your family's income. I hope you'll contact your representatives in Washington and let them know what you think. Tell them respectfully but passionately when you think they've gone too far. After all, they work for you and at your pleasure. When you've had enough, elect other representatives who will be more responsive to the nation's well-being.

Thanks for your continued interest in the ministry of Focus on the Family. I hope you'll let us know how we can serve you and your loved ones in the days ahead.

God's blessings to you.

Sincerely,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
April 2008

Should Christians obey the Anti-Christ?

2008-04-25T10:16:00.002-06:00

The answer should be obvious, but perhaps not to all of us. Click on the following link to read more: http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/scota.html

Are You a Red Letter or a Black Letter Christian?

2008-02-28T13:26:00.001-07:00

Click here to find out:
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2008/02-25-08.asp

Here’s proof that our nation is going off the deep end:

2008-02-28T12:35:00.002-07:00

We kill unborn babies for being the "wrong color" and suspend students for taking vitamins.

Read about it here: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57526

and here:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57533

Defining Evangelicalism Down

2008-02-20T15:51:00.003-07:00

By Paul Edwards

The Religious Left is successfully redefining what it means to be a conservative evangelical by misrepresenting what it means to be a conservative evangelical. In a recent conference call hosted by Faith in Public Life, one of the emerging voices of the Religious Left, Dr. Joel Hunter, said:

There’s also a change in the voices that are defining what is conservative now, and what is evangelical. In the past couple of decades you’ve had some very loud voices on both sides – hard right, hard left – and when those were the only choices, then of course many evangelicals are going to go with the hard right because, well, that’s kind of where we mostly are. Now there are many more voices that are expanding the agenda, and so those people that have always had kind of a holistic approach, rather than just a one or two issue approach, are now feeling permission and given permission to be more nuanced and more sophisticated in their approach, rather than just going in a very bifurcated system. And so, what you’re hearing now is that the old voices that appointed themselves as the definers of what was evangelical or what was conservative are not holding sway with the majority of evangelicals anymore.

By convincing America that conservative evangelicals are concerned only with two issues, stopping abortion and preserving traditional marriage, these new voices of evangelicalism are effectively making the case that conservative evangelicals ignore poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment. The history of evangelicalism tells a different story.

Evangelicals have set the standard throughout history for social action which continues into the present through numerous humanitarian relief organizations. The Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations claim 64 such organizations as members, including World Vision, Compassion International, Samaritan’s Purse, and Mercy Ships.

One of the largest humanitarian relief organizations in the world is the Salvation Army. It defines its commitment to social services as “…an outward visible expression of the Army's strong religious principles.” Those social services include disaster relief, services for the aging, AIDS education, medical facilities, and shelters for battered women. The Salvation Army impacts 30 million people a year in the United States alone. The founder of the Salvation Army, William Booth, was a Methodist minister. On its website the Salvation Army defines itself as an “evangelical group.”

To these readily recognizable evangelical organizations add the innumerable evangelical churches across America that in very quiet and unrecognized ways minister to the needs of the poor and suffering every day. In my own community a local evangelical church runs the oldest and largest homeless shelter in our county. Grace Gospel Fellowship in Pontiac, Michigan serves 127,000 meals a year, provides rehabilitation services and housing for drug addicts and single mothers, and creates jobs. It accomplishes its mission without one dime of government funding, and is “dedicated to recovery through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The Religious Left’s appeal for the Religious Right to “broaden its agenda” to include poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment ignores the fact that conservative evangelicals have always had a strong commitment to these issues. So if conservative evangelicals are already leading the efforts to relieve poverty and disease, what’s behind the call to “broaden the agenda”? Another agenda altogether.

What’s really happening here is an attempt by the Left to define evangelicalism down by moving it away from its emphasis on the power of the gospel to change lives. The church’s ability to affect social and cultural change, bringing relief to the poor and suffering, is rooted first and foremost in its commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and what the gospel says about the condition of man in sin which results in the symptoms of poverty and disease.

The Religious Left invalidates the conservative evangelical commitment to humanitarian relief because we are achieving our ends in the name of Jesus Christ through the gospel, without the assistance of government funding. The fundamental tenant of modern liberalism is that a government program funded by redistributed wealth is the preferred method of humanitarian relief rather than what the church is accomplishing by faith through compassionate hearts.

The new voices of the Religious Left – Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al – are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The argument for this reprioritizing is a convincing one, suggesting the new priorities for evangelicals ought to be determined by asking, “How would Jesus respond to (fill in your favorite social cause here)?” The implied answer is that Jesus would be more concerned about the treatment of the poor (especially illegal immigrants) and, at best, neutral on the questions of abortion and homosexual marriage because Jesus never spoke against abortion or homosexual marriage.

These new voices of evangelicalism wear the label “red letter Christians,” but they are in reality “white space Christians,” determining Jesus’ view of abortion and homosexual marriage by focusing on what he didn’t say rather than on what he did say. In Matthew 5 Jesus upholds the standard of the Mosaic Law, which is clear in its call for punishing anyone responsible for killing a child in the womb (Exodus 21:22-25). When Jesus wanted to illustrate true greatness, he set a child in the midst of the disciples and said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In Matthew 19 Jesus clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman by validating the story of Adam and Eve, holding it up as the standard for marriage. As for the question of how Jesus would respond to illegal immigrants, I’m pretty sure he would tell them to obey the law (cf. Matthew 22:21).

The new voices of evangelicalism sound eerily similar to the old voices of the social gospel movement who moved their churches away from the priority of the gospel in the early 20th Century, focusing instead on positive thinking and welfare as a solution to social ills. The result was empty pews and even emptier hearts. I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, then I’ll get down on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again (with apologies to Pete Townshend).

Paul Edwards is the host of The Paul Edward Program and a pastor. His program is heard daily on WLQV in Detroit and on godandculture.com

URL: http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulEdwards/2008/02/12/defining_evangelicalism_down

Since when does being a Christian mean giving “unmitigated support” to the military?

2008-02-19T12:25:00.003-07:00

Last week, I received two frenzied e-mail alerts from Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), an organization ostensibly devoted to defending our First Amendment liberties, particularly the free exercise of religion. The ACLJ identifies itself as “Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc.,” a “tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation.” The e-mail I received demanded that I “give generously” in order to punish the city of Berkeley, California, for “insulting” the U.S. Marines. Apparently, the City Council had decided that the Marines’ recruiting office was no longer welcome there. The e-mail also chided the Mayor of Toledo, Ohio, for canceling a military training exercise scheduled in Toledo because the Marines “frighten people.”

As the wife of an Air Force veteran, I care deeply about the men and women in our armed forces. I admire the sacrifices they make to protect our country, and I ache for those who are separated from their families while serving overseas. However, I fail to see how a city’s refusal to allow military recruiting and/or training exercises in its communities warrants the intervention of evangelical Christians.

Here are some quotes from Jay Sekulow’s e-mails:

“Do not allow this anti-military, anti-America sentiment to pervade!”

“At best, this kind of action is nothing more than hostile liberal activism.”

“With your help, we will ... take radical, anti-military rhetoric to task. We will hold liberal politicians accountable for their outrageous behavior.”

“[U.S. military personnel] deserve our unmitigated support.”

Here are my problems with Jay’s tirade:

1. Refusing to allow the military to conduct training exercises in one’s city is not necessarily “anti-American.” As someone who is extremely wary of the dangers of big government (my father grew up in Nazi Germany), I sympathize with those who would be fearful upon seeing an overt military presence in their communities. After hearing about numerous innocent Americans who were killed in no-knock paramilitary-style raids on their homes (at least one instance was a case of mistaken identity), I would be quite uneasy if I observed uniformed military personnel conducting training exercises in my neighborhood.

2. It is wrong to assume that only “liberal activists” would object to military recruiting offices/training exercises in their cities and communities. Libertarians and Christian pacifists may also have qualms about allowing recruiting offices or military training to take place in their cities.

3. As evangelical Christians, I’m not sure we should be devoting our time and energies to taking “anti-military rhetoric to task.” When Jesus spoke about our being salt and light, somehow I don’t think this is what He had in mind.

4. There are a host of abuses that politicians—liberal and otherwise—have committed in recent times for which they should be held accountable. I’m sure Jay could have found even more “outrageous behavior” to castigate had he looked far enough, including SWAT-type raids on home schooling families, government control and manipulation of juries, and unreasonable searches and seizures against innocent people. With so many serious problems in our government, I question the wisdom of focusing his organization’s resources on punishing a couple of cities for insulting the Marines.

5. Many patriotic Americans, including my husband who served in the military, have legitimate gripes with the armed services and therefore may not support their recruiting efforts. My husband has often said he would never recommend military service to anyone because of the experimental vaccines that new recruits are forced to undergo (he suspects that the autoimmune disease he has stems from an experimental Swine flu vaccine he was given in the Air Force). In addition, some conservatives and constitutionalists object to the way the U.S. military is being used as a global policeman. One such “police action” was the invasion of Congo’s Katanga province in the 1960s, which broke away from the pro-communist Congolese regime of Patrice Lumumba. As part of a UN “peacekeeping” operation, U.S. planes bombed hospitals, churches, and schools in order to force the Christian-led government of Katanga to submit to communist rule.

6. The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, while hardly typical of the U.S. military as a whole, should make Christians wary of giving any branch of the armed forces “unmitigated support.”

If anyone else wants to weigh in on this issue, I’d be interested in your comments.

U.S. government bans incandescent light bulbs

2008-01-10T12:41:00.000-07:00

"They will be phased out - replaced, as of today anyway, with unsafe, more expensive, ugly bulbs that cast light that causes headaches and worse side effects in some," writes Joseph Farrah in World Net Daily. "These compact fluorescents contain toxic mercury, so, when they inevitably break in your home and office, you are exposing yourself to hazardous materials. Just imagine what will happen when the bulbs find their way into landfills and the mercury begins to leech into groundwater and run off into streams and rivers.

"By the way, the new bulbs are all made in China - known for imposing the highest standards of safety on its manufacturing sweatshops."

To view the entire article, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59514

Jesus' Coming Most Important Political Event In History

2007-12-20T12:23:00.001-07:00

By John Lofton of American View

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.” – Mark 12:17.

The religious significance of the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is well known. But, what is not so well known is the sense in which Christ’s birth is “the most important single political event in history,” as Dr. R.J. Rushdoony has observed and documented in many of his books. For example, in his book “The Foundations Of Social Order: Studies In The Creeds And Councils Of The Early Church” (1968), Dr. Rushdoony, referring to the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), calls this an event that “handed Statism its major defeat in man’s history” because it established God as “the true sovereign and the true source of law.” He notes: “Western liberty began when the claim of the State to be man’s savior was denied. The State then, according to Scripture, was made the ministry of justice. But, wherever Christ ceases to be man’s Savior, there liberty perishes as the State again asserts its messianic claims. Man is in trouble, and history is the record of his attempt to find salvation. Man needs a savior, and the question is simply one of choice: Christ or the State? No man can choose one without denying the other, and all attempts at compromise are a delusion.”

And this is why, Dr. Rushdoony says, so much legislative action has been futile: “Congress may enact something, but the ‘sovereign’ bureaucracy and courts can empty the act of all meaning and continue to play god over us. The root of the problem must be faced: sovereignty. The secular humanists have created, after [the German philosopher] Hegel, a new god walking on earth — the State. There is no way to harness a god; he harnesses us. As long as the State is sovereign, we are helpless. The efforts of men against a god are helpless….

“Thus, the key issue of our time is lordship or sovereignty: Who is the lord or sovereign, Christ or the State? Christmas reminds us once again of the birth of this world’s only true Lord or Sovereign. We will either acknowledge Him or be judged by Him.”

And make no mistake about it. Regardless of what you’ve heard regarding the alleged greatness of the ancient, Greco-Roman, pre-Christian world, there was no real, true freedom and/or liberty during this era. None. In his book “The Ancient City: A Study On The Religion, Laws And Institutions Of Greece And Rome” (1889), Fustel de Coulanges spells out in detail the darkness of this Christless world:

“The citizen was subordinate in everything, and without any reserve, to the city; he belonged to it body and soul. The [pagan] religion which produced the State, and the State which supported [this] religion, sustained each other; these two powers formed a power almost superhuman, to which the body and soul were equally enslaved. There was nothing independent in man; his body belonged to the State and was devoted to its defense.”

For example, Aristotle and Plato incorporated into their ideal codes the command that a deformed baby son was to be put to death. And in his “Laws,” Plato says (and this sounds very familiar today): “Parents ought not to be free to send or not to send their children to the masters to whom the city has chosen [for their education]; for the children belong less to their parents than to the city.” And in ancient Athens, a man could be put on trial and convicted for something called “incivism,” that is being insufficiently affectionate toward the State! Coulanges says (emphasis mine):

“The ancients, therefore, knew neither liberty in private life, liberty in education, nor religious liberty. The human person counted for very little against that holy and almost divine authority called the country or the State… .It is a singular error, among all human errors, to believe that in the ancient cities men enjoyed liberty. They had not even the idea of it.”

Commenting on our Lord’s God/Caesar distinction, Coulanges says: “It is the first time that God and the state are so clearly distinguished. For Caesar at that period was still the pontifex maximus, the chief and the principal organ of the Roman religion; he was the guardian and the interpreter of beliefs. He held the worship and the dogmas in his hands. Even his person was sacred and divine, for it was a peculiarity of the policy of the emperors that, wishing to recover the attributes of ancient royalty, they were careful not to forget the divine character which antiquity had attached to the king-pontiffs and to the priest-founders. But now Christ breaks the alliance which paganism and the empire wished to renew. He proclaims that religion is no longer the State, and that to obey Caesar is no longer the same thing as to obey God.

“Christianity…. separates what all antiquity had confounded….It was the source whence individual liberty flowed….The first duty no longer consisted in giving one’s time, one’s strength, one’s life to the State….all the virtues were no longer comprised in patriotism, for the soul no longer had a country. Man felt that he had other obligations besides that of living and dying for the city. Christianity… placed God, the family, the human individual above country, the neighbor above the city.”

Because of this hideous tyranny, it is no surprise that self-murder (suicide) was so rampant in the ancient world. As Dr. Gerhard Uhlhorn tells us in his “The Conflict Of Christianity With Heathenism” (1899): “Heathenism ended in barrenness and sheer despair, and at last the only comfort was that men are free to leave this miserable world by suicide. Patet exitus! The way out of this life stands open! That is the last consolation of expiring heathenism.” And he quotes Seneca, who said that “the aim of all philosophy is to despise life,” as saying, concerning the suicide option: “Seest thou yon steep height? Thence is the descent to freedom. Seest thou yon sea, yon river, yon well? Freedom sits there in the depths. Seest thou yon low, withered tree? There freedom hangs. Seest thou thy neck, thy throat, thy heart? They are ways of escape from bondage.” To which Dr. Uhihorn adds:

“Can the bankruptcy of Heathenism be more plainly declared than in these words?…With what power then must have come the preaching of this word: ‘Christ is risen! The wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.’”

And in a little noticed and seldom quoted passage from “Democracy In America,” Alexis de Tocqueville says: “The most profound and capacious minds of Rome and Greece….tried to prove that slavery was in the order of nature and that it would always exist. Nay, more, everything shows that those of the ancients who had been slaves before they became free, many of whom have left us excellent writings, themselves regarded servitude in no other light.

“All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and expanded before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all members of the human race are by nature equal and alike. “

The historian Arnold Toynbee saw, accurately, the great failing of the ancient Greeks that they “saw in Man, ‘the Lord of Creation,’ and worshipped him as an idol instead of God.” And this rejection of the true God —- which similarly threatens modern Western civilization —- led to Hellenism’s breakdown and disintegration. Rejecting Gibbon, Toynbee says neither Christians nor barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire; they merely walked over a corpse.

And in his book “Religious Origins Of The American Revolution” (Scholars Press, 1976), Page Smith points out: “The American Revolution might thus be said to have started, in a sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg. It received a substantial part its theological and philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin’s ‘Institutes Of The Christian Religion’ and much of its social history from the Puritan Revolution of 1640- 1660, and, perhaps, less obviously, from the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

“Put another way, the American Revolution is inconceivable in the absence of that context of ideas which have constituted radical Christianity. The leaders of the Revolution in every colony were imbued with the precepts of the Reformed faith.” Indeed, he adds, in early America, the Reformation “left its mark on every aspect of the personal and social life of the faithful. In the family, in education, in business activity, in work, in community and, ultimately, in politics, the consequences of the Reformation were determinative for American history.”

As remote or repugnant as Puritanism may be to some, Smith says “it is essential that we understand that the Reformation in its full power was one of the great emancipations of history.” He says the passage in the book of Micah about “every man…under his vine and under his fig tree” was “the most potent expression of the colonist’s determination to be independent whatever the cost,…having substantial control over his own affairs. No theme was more constantly reiterated by writers and speakers in the era of the Revolution.”

God’s Word tells us that if the Son makes us free, we “shall be free indeed” (John 8:36) —- meaning, among other things, at liberty from sin. We are told of “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:21). We are told that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (II Corinthians 3:17). We are told to “stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free…” (Galatians 5:1). And we are told of Christ’s “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25).

The Lord Jesus Christ is, in all areas of life, the First, True Libertarian!

He is not only the author and finisher of our faith, but also the Architect of all real human freedom. And of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, to His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice, from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this (Isaiah 9:7). Come, let us adore Him, Christ The Lord!

URL: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=963

Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned

2007-08-16T14:30:00.000-06:00

By Jeremy Grant

The US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned.

David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country’s future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.

These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt.

Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

“Sound familiar?” Mr Walker said. “In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.”

Mr Walker’s views carry weight because he is a non-partisan figure in charge of the Government Accountability Office, often described as the investigative arm of the US Congress.

While most of its studies are commissioned by legislators, about 10 per cent – such as the one containing his latest warnings – are initiated by the comptroller general himself.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Walker said he had mentioned some of the issues before but now wanted to “turn up the volume”. Some of them were too sensitive for others in government to “have their name associated with”.

“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on.

“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.

The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.

“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr. Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.

Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.

“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”

Mr Walker said he would offer to brief the would-be presidential candidates next spring.

“They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Death toll limited before campus gun ban

2007-04-23T12:51:00.000-06:00

Five years ago, armed students subdued gunman; for details, visit the following link: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55326

The "good guys" are enabling evil

2007-04-17T12:41:00.000-06:00

By Felicia Dionisio, © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Why didn't the president of Virginia Tech University and the police chief charged with protecting the lives of those poor defenseless students and faculty members do more to stop the campus massacre?

Because they were enabling evil.

They're just the latest example of a society-wide refusal to fight the good fight.

I'm sitting here watching these same men give a news conference in front of TV cameras. They look like deer in headlights as they try to explain why they apparently allowed a madman to kill two people and then remain on a college campus for hours while they stood by, meek as lambs, refusing to acknowledge the evil thrust upon them, refusing to allow the innocent any opportunity to protect themselves.

The so-called SWAT teams are supposed to neutralize the threat. They're trained to rush in and save lives. Why are so many of them seen on video standing around behind police cars while shots are being fired, while innocents are dying inside?

Why don't they do what they are trained and paid to do? Why were they sitting back and allowing evil to run its course without fighting to stop it?

Because they were enabling evil.

Did Columbine not change the rules? Knowing what we know now, why didn't they stop the threat sooner? There had been previous bomb threats at Virginia Tech and another shooting near campus last year. Hello?

Am I the only one on the planet who recognizes and fears the post-9/11 world we live in?

Did anyone not think this might be a terrorist act?

For that matter, did anyone not think a lone gunman, some evil nut, might be on a shooting rampage?

Did anyone not think it might be a good idea to cancel cheerleading tryouts?

I have only one explanation for why everybody failed to react in a more aggressive manner. Why they did what they did. Why they didn't do what they should have done.

Because they were enabling evil. Because our laws, our culture, our attitudes, our ways are all influenced by evil.

This is Satan's world, and most are marching to the beat of his drum, whether they know it or not.

Those ''authorities,'' and anyone else who had any opportunity to thwart this slaughter, are complicit in this horrible crime.

They sat on their hands for hours and stood by as dozens of innocents, completely unaware of the evil about to be thrust upon them, were slaughtered.

I can draw only one conclusion. They refused to act, because they didn't want to act. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.

The ''authorities'' hid behind their desks and their police cars.

They didn't want to ''inconvenience'' anyone.

They didn't want to make a fuss.

They didn't want to overreact.

They didn't want to appear foolish.

They didn't want to risk ridicule.

They didn't want to make anyone angry.

They didn't want to get sued.

They didn't want to shoot someone.

They didn't want to pay any overtime.

They didn't want to miss lunch.

They didn't want to trouble any professors.

They didn't want to do the right thing.

They didn't want to cancel those cheerleading tryouts.

And they didn't want to acknowledge evil exists and thrives in this world.

They didn't want to confront that evil. And they didn't want to confront it, because they're enabling evil.

Think about it.

Why don't lawmakers seem to know the difference between right and wrong? Why don't they ever do anything for the good of the people?

More laws that limit freedom? Like gun-control laws?

Higher taxes?

Illegal immigration?

Why don't our elected officials seal our borders and protect U.S. sovereignty?

Jail for protecting your life and property?

Innocent young men accused of rape while exonerating evidence is withheld?

Evil.

It's out there. And it reared its ugly head yet again today in a sleepy little town in Virginia.

Sadly, the ''good guys'' stood around and watched it happen.

And that, my friend, is evil.

http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55241

Homeschooling parents plead for prayer

2007-04-12T13:36:00.000-06:00

Three families face fines, frozen accounts. For more details, see http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55151

Ode to a bull in a china shop—a tribute to my husband

2007-04-04T23:11:00.000-06:00

He’s a classic Type Eight, in the style of John Wayne and Martin Luther King Jr. Alex knows instinctively when something is rotten in Denmark and will immediately rush into battle to make it right. He got into a loud and very public argument with a political candidate during Colorado Springs’ Territory Days, and former DA Dan May threatened Alex with a lawsuit for a letter he wrote to the local paper questioning May’s support for the U.S. Constitution. Alex venerates America's founding fathers and is saddened that their spirit is vanishing from our land.

Alex has taken on corrupt government agencies and is currently a plaintiff in a Right to Petition lawsuit against the Department of Justice. He despises evil and injustice with a passion I have rarely seen. He has been willing to sacrifice much in his fight for justice and righteousness. He has pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor to oppose tyranny in all its forms. Many a patriot has been able to rely on Alex for support, encouragement, prayer, and whatever practical assistance he could provide.

As a typical Eight, Alex is no diplomat. I can’t count how many family gatherings have been ruined or upset by his knack for bluntness. Eights actively “seek conflict or come right out and create it” (Rohr and Ebert 163). Eights have the need to be against—to fight the unbeatable foe, to run where the brave dare not go.

Eights have many gifts, and the world would be a much darker place without them: “Their passion for justice and truth often leads them to side with the oppressed and defenseless . . . For the sake of justice eights are willing to fight the powers that be with every available weapon” (Rohr and Ebert 163-164). In such an effort, Alex even became an area coordinator for the American Jury Institute in its attempt to bring justice back to American courtrooms.

Eights are in good company, including Martin Luther King Jr. “and many other Christians who understood the gospel as political” (Rohr and Ebert 177).

Alex is one of my heroes. If I hadn’t married him, I’d be a sniveling little coward worshipping at the altar of security. I wouldn’t have as much appreciation for the Old Testament prophets who continually pointed God’s people to the weighty matters of truth and justice and defended the rights of the oppressed. I wouldn’t understand that when Jesus died on the cross, He was fighting for the underdog—and won the ultimate battle against the ultimate tyrant.

Living with an Eight is a challenge for us Sixes, whose main desire is security. “While ones reform the system from within, eights tend to climb out of the system and throw stones at it. That… frightens people. It’s easy to fear and hate eights” (Rohr and Ebert 166).

But “when you’re really poor, helpless, and weak, the eight’s protective instinct is aroused, and they will do anything to assist you.” Eights have “a passion and a total commitment to truth, life, and justice” (Rohr and Ebert 167).

Aside from knowing my Savior, loving an Eight has been the greatest privilege of my life. I can’t imagine what I would be if I hadn’t known the wonder and pain, blessing and hardship, of being married to an Eight.

Bibliography
Rohr, Richard and Andreas Ebert. The Enneagram: a Christian Perspective. New York: Crossroad, 2002

School drill portrays killers as Christians

2007-04-04T09:28:00.000-06:00

School officials in Burlington, N.J., who wanted to stage a "hostage situation" drill have portrayed the attackers as Christians, including one who was upset that his daughter was expelled for praying before class. Supt. Chris Manno praised the exercise to test the response of the school and police, explaining, "You perform as you practice. We need to practice under conditions as real as possible in order to evaluate our procedures and plans so that they're as effective as possible

Read about it on WND.com:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55024

As an aside, I find the timing of Holy Week very interesting.

God wants YOU to serve on jury duty!

2007-03-09T12:20:00.000-07:00

Recently, I asked readers of this blog their opinion about voting their conscience while sitting on a jury. Since there were no responses, I’ve been pondering what kind of scintillating follow-up piece I could dream up to engage readers in a topic that is very close to my heart. Because this post is read mostly by my colleagues in The Christian and Missionary Alliance, I decided to frame the debate in an issue that may hit closer to home: sharing the gospel.

In America today, our right to freedom of religion, particularly public witnessing, has come under increasing attack. Some of you may be familiar with the case of the Philadelphia Four, in which four Christians faced a potential sentence of 47 years in prison for preaching in public at an Out Fest. While I don’t embrace the in-your-face, fire-and-brimstone style of preaching these believers employed, “even gay advocacy groups said the arrests were unconstitutional and wrong,” according to Christianity Today. Thankfully, the case was eventually dismissed.

Imagine for a moment that such a case did go to trial because a law had been passed designating public witnessing a hate crime and forbidding its practice. Imagine also that you are the person on trial, and that you were arrested for sharing the gospel with a spiritual seeker in your neighborhood. An atheist overheard you and was offended. During the trial, it is established beyond the shadow of a doubt that you broke the law. You face a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. By the time you are eligible for parole, your children, now in grade school, will be in their 30s.

Should the jury find you guilty? Is there any reason why a jury shouldn’t convict someone who has knowingly and willfully defied the law of the land?

What if you were the juror in such a case? What would our legal system require you to do, and would your legal duty be compatible with God’s requirements? Is it possible that serving on jury duty can help you fulfill your Christian as well as your civic duty?

Could it be that God wants YOU to serve on jury duty?

Tune in next time to find out!

Uphold the law or follow your conscience?

2007-02-22T12:23:00.000-07:00

Imagine you are juror during the early 1800s. The case involves a Christian couple standing trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Acts (Click here for details). You know that their fate hangs on what the jury will decide. As someone who finds slavery morally wrong, you also know that if this couple is convicted, it will send a message to other abolitionists not to help runaway slaves. A conviction, therefore, could prevent countless slaves from escaping to freedom.

As a juror, should you be free to find the defendants innocent even though they clearly violated the law? While sitting on a jury, should you be allowed to vote your conscience or must you simply decide the facts of the case?

Tune in to upcoming blogs for Part 2 of a continuing discussion on jury rights. As always, I welcome your comments.

Homeschooler snatched by SWAT team disappears

2007-02-16T12:50:00.000-07:00

Click here for details.

Oops!

2007-02-15T12:36:00.000-07:00

My blogger account has been switched over to Google, and I'm having trouble posting links. I will try to correct this in the future. Meantime, the full URL for the petition to free the border patrol agents is:

http://capwiz.com/sicminc/utr/2/?a=9353311&i=51149111&c=

It is hosted by Rightmarch.com.

Sorry for the inconvience.

Gross Miscarriage of Justice

2007-02-15T12:13:00.000-07:00

Two border patrol agents were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in jail, respectively, for shooting a drug smuggler who was crossing the Mexico border illegally. One of the agents has been brutally beaten by inmates; both men have families to support (one has a wife who is confined to a wheelchair).

To demand REAL JUSTICE for these two heroes, click on this "'http://www2.blogger.com/web address'>web address.

Check out "http://www2.blogger.com/WorldNetDaily'>WorldNetDaily to read more about this unfolding story.

The Face of Tyranny

2007-02-15T11:07:00.000-07:00

Eritrean officials seize church finances, jail Samaritan's Purse drivers.

Click here for details.

NFL Cracks Down on Church Super Bowl Events

2007-02-08T12:05:00.000-07:00

Click here to find out more. The article's a bit dated but worth reading for those who haven’t heard of this latest insanity.

Why conservatism is dead

2007-02-06T12:09:00.000-07:00

“There are basically two worldviews in conflict here: One is a socialist vision in which government plays god. The other is a freedom vision in which government is subservient to God.”—Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily

To read the entire article, click here.

PS: This is a good explanation for why I prefer the term "Libertarian" or, better yet, "Constitutionalist."

Forced vaccination without representation

2007-02-06T12:00:00.000-07:00

“Our children would be forced to be injected with three doses of a vaccine that could cause serious side effects and we don't know the long term safety or efficacy,” writes Barbara Simpson of WorldNetDaily. “It's human experimentation and the government is pushing it.”

To read the entire article, click here.

Rapture Ready?

2007-02-05T13:10:00.000-07:00

Truth, justice and the rapture debate

If Christians are serious about impacting their world for Jesus, why on earth would they want to leave the planet during the most difficult period in history? If we care about justice for the poor and oppressed, why are we hoping to get as far away from them as possible in a pre-trib rapture ride to heaven? How well do we love our neighbors if we long to escape the tribulation while they go to hell?

For a hard-hitting perspective on some of these questions, click here.

Our Founders' recommendations for president

2007-02-05T12:30:00.000-07:00

Exclusive: Chuck Norris reveals who he'd like to see make a run for White House. Click here for the article from World Net Daily. While I don’t agree with Norris’ choice, this article is well worth reading for its insight into the biblical criteria for government leadership. The column also includes a link to an Election Day sermon from Wallbuilders.com.

Secret Service confiscates gospel tracts

2007-01-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

Click here for details.

Government turns its guns on citizenry

2007-01-29T12:44:00.000-07:00

In recent years American police forces have called out SWAT teams 40,000 or more times annually. Last year did you read in your newspaper or hear on TV news of 110 hostage or terrorist events each day? No. What, then, were the SWAT teams doing? They were serving routine warrants to people who posed no danger to the police or to the public...

Click here to continue the article. It would be interesting to discuss this in light of Romans 13:3: "For rulers hold no terror for those who right, but for those who do wrong."

Government wants bloggers to register

2007-01-19T12:06:00.000-07:00

By Nick Farrell

The U.S. government is planning to force bloggers who criticise Congress and organise grassroot causes to register themselves or face jail time.

According to GrassrootsFreedom.com, under Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, bloggers who have more than 500 readers will have to register and report quarterly to Congress just like lobbiests or go to jail.

GrassrootsFreedom.com chairman Richard Viguerie said the new law would create the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever.

The amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter and is currently on hold as it seems to have got bogged down in the legislative process. It would be interesting to find a bog that is read by more than 500 people.

Click here to access this article

Designer Babies?

2007-01-11T16:02:00.000-07:00

Click here for details.

Standing for Righteousness

2006-12-22T12:15:00.000-07:00

Pro-Life nurse refuses to assist in abortion of Down Syndrome child. Click here for the full story.

Missing Ukrainian Infants Likely Killed for Stem Cells

2006-12-19T14:15:00.000-07:00

from Citizen Link staff reports

BBC video documents ghastly find. Click here for the full story.

Wisconsin lawmaker urges arming teachers

2006-12-01T12:22:00.000-07:00

A state lawmaker, worried about deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent. For the full article, click here.

When the response of lawmakers to mass shootings is usually to curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self defense, I found this suggestion refreshingly commonsensical.

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

2006-11-21T12:23:00.000-07:00

By Richard J. Maybury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

Mr. Maybury writes on investments. This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985.

Available online..

A Refreshing Perspective from the Religious Right

2006-11-09T16:59:00.000-07:00

America is Great:
After-Thoughts about the Election

By Rev. Lou Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition

This election has caused me to marvel at our Constitution and our way of government. We have just been through a revolution and yet there was no bloodshed. Some may have been mad, cried, been depressed, got drunk, etc. but no one was killed.

We were in the Ivory Coast earlier this year. They are having a revolution over who is going to be in the leadership of that country. Some were not happy with the results of a majority vote so they caused bloodshed, forced people out of their homes, in some places it is unsafe to travel, in some places thugs have taken control, the countryside savaged, people have had their businesses stolen and their money confiscated.

History is replete with examples of atrocities which occurred over the change of leadership such as following the French Revolution many people including King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were beheaded and even in England these things occurred until, under the influence of the evangelist Charles Wesley, they had what was called “a bloodless revolution” because the gospel took hold, causing the leadership to change peacefully.

Tuesday our Congressional leadership changed, but our lives and our government are still intact.

Minimum wage laws: social justice for the poor—or feel-good legislation for politicians?

2006-11-08T17:22:00.000-07:00

On November 7, the state of Colorado voted to increase the minimum wage. While those who voted in favor of the increase were no doubt motivated by compassion for “the least of these,” they may be surprised at the affect minimum-wage laws have on the needy. For an interesting perspective on this subject, I encourage you to read the following article by Thomas Sowell, also available online.

A Glimmer of Hope

August 07, 2006

It was a common political move when Chicago's city council voted recently to impose a $10 an hour minimum wage on big-box retailers. There is nothing that politicians like better than handing out benefits to be paid for by someone else.

What was uncommon was the reaction. Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley denounced the bill as "redlining," since it would have the net effect of keeping much-needed stores and jobs out of black neighborhoods. Both Chicago newspapers also denounced the bill.

The crowning touch came when Andrew Young, former civil rights leader and former mayor of Atlanta, went to Chicago to criticize local black leaders who supported this bill.

While the $10 an hour minimum wage was politics as usual, the
unusual backlash against it provides at least a glimmer of hope that more
people are beginning to consider the economic consequences of such feel-good
legislation.

A survey has shown that 85 percent of the economists in Canada
and 90 percent of the economists in the United States say that minimum wage
laws reduce employment. But you don't need a Ph.D. in economics to know that jacking up prices leads fewer people to buy. Those people include employers, who hire less labor when labor is made artificially more expensive.

It happens in France, it happens in South Africa, it happens in
New Zealand. How surprised should we be when it happens in Chicago?

The economic consequence of political largess--whether in the
form of minimum wage laws or medical or other benefits mandated to be paid
for by employers--is to make labor artificially more expensive.

Countries with generous employee benefits mandated by law--
Germany and France, for example--have chronically higher unemployment
rates than unemployment rates in the United States, where jobs are created
at a far higher rate than in Europe.

There is no free lunch. Higher labor costs mean fewer jobs.

Since all workers do not have the same skill or experience, minimum wage laws have more impact on some than on others. Young, inexperienced and unskilled workers are especially likely to find it harder to get a job when wage rates have been set higher than the value of their productivity.

In France, where the national unemployment rate is 10 percent,
the unemployment rate among workers less than 26 years old is 23 percent.
Among young people from the Muslim minority, the unemployment rate is even higher.

In the United States, the group hardest hit by minimum wage laws are black male teenagers. Those who refuse to admit that the minimum wage is
the reason for high unemployment rates among young blacks blame racism, lack
of education and whatever else occurs to them.

The hard facts say otherwise. Back in the 1940s, there was no less racism than today and black teenagers had no more education than today, but their unemployment rate was a fraction of what it is now--and was no different from that of white teenagers.

What was different back then? Although there was a minimum wage law on the books, the inflation of that era had raised wage rates well above the specified minimum, which had remained unchanged for years.

For all practical purposes, there was no minimum wage law. Only after the minimum wage began to be raised, beginning in 1950, and escalating repeatedly in the years thereafter, did black teenage unemployment skyrocket.

Most studies show unemployment resulting from minimum wages. But a few studies that reach different conclusions are hailed as having "refuted" the "myth" that minimum wages cause unemployment.

Some of these latter studies involve surveying employers before and after a minimum wage increase. But you can only survey employers who are still in business. By surveying people who played Russian roulette and are still around, you could "refute" the "myth" that Russian roulette is dangerous.

Minimum wage laws play Russian roulette with people who need jobs and the work experience that will enable them to rise to higher pay levels. There is now a glimmer of hope that more people are beginning to understand this, despite political demagoguery.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Sowing and Reaping: Scandals Scorch House GOP

2006-11-08T12:12:00.000-07:00

Democrats take at least 12 seats from scandal-tainted Republicans.

For more details, click here.

Legalize marijuana?

2006-11-03T17:29:00.000-07:00

The evangelical community is reeling over the revelation that Ted Haggard has admitted to having purchased methamphetamine, even as Colorado voters are preparing to vote on Amendment 44, which would allow people 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. Let me be clear: I am adamantly opposed to substance abuse. Dependence on mind-altering drugs has nearly destroyed several people in my family. My step-brother is homeless, broke and alone due to his addiction, having lost custody of his little girl. My mother was an alcoholic for many years before God miraculously delivered her. I have seen the effects of drunkenness and drug abuse, and I know God hates it. Nonetheless, this Election Day I am voting in favor of Amendment 44.

Why would I vote to decriminalize an activity that is sinful and destructive? Quite simply, there is no biblical mandate for the civil government to regulate and control the use of drugs.

While the Religious Right has a penchant for using the power of the state to force unredeemed people to behave in redeemed ways, nowhere is this tendency seen in Jesus or the apostles of the Early Church. When Jesus saw a person trapped in sin, his response did not consist in appealing to the Roman authorities to criminalize the sinner’s behavior. He did not call for a law prohibiting cohabitation when he encountered the Samaritan woman who was living with a man who was not her husband. Instead, he offered her the only means of overcoming the bondage of her sin—a life-giving relationship with God.

Although idolatry was punishable by death under the theocracy of ancient Israel, the apostle Paul did not lobby the government of Rome for a law against idol worship. Rather, he introduced idolaters to the One True God who could set them free. When sexual immorality crept into the church, Paul did not seek to make those sins illegal; he called the guilty parties to repentance.

The Word of God in Romans 13 pictures civil government as a God-ordained minister to “punish those who impose wrong on others,” writes Tom Rose, professor emeritus at Grove City College. “In short, the biblical role of civil government is to foster justice and to prevent people from engaging in acts of violence against each other” (“Should Christians Favor the Decriminalization of Drugs,” The Christian Statesman, vol. 129, no. 1).

While the Law of Moses contained numerous prohibitions against consuming certain foods, nowhere does the New Testament suggest that the state should pass laws governing what people can ingest. When discussing the role of government, neither Peter nor Paul called upon the power of the state to legislate holiness. Yet this is precisely what Christians are doing when they support laws against drug use. They are asking the civil government to force non-Christians to behave like Christians. The same can be said for laws against gambling, prostitution, pornography, and profanity.

“These Christians, in effect, tend to look at the civil authority as the ultimate guarantor of what they themselves envision as the ‘good life,’” says Rose, “and they end up turning civil government into a secular god.”

Not only is Christian support for the war on drugs unbiblical—it is also illogical. The drug war has clearly been a failure. Before drug use was criminalized, drug abuse was not the epidemic it has become today. Innocent bystanders weren’t killed in turf wars over drugs, and addicts didn’t have to steal to support their habit—because there was no black market creating the artificially high prices that are currently paid for drugs.

Our View of the Colorado Springs Gazette (11-3-06) describes the war on drugs as being “responsible for thousands of deaths, prison overcrowding and untold misery for a lot of people… A blanket prohibition on drugs clearly isn’t working.” Moreover,

“banning certain products on the grounds that they might be dangerous in the hands of some people shouldn’t fly in a truly free society. Government is in the business of protecting us from others, not ourselves. It’s true that marijuana use is not risk free. But very little in life is, and free people should be able to make their own choices. The drug war has been going on for decades and drugs are still readily available across the country, proof that current policy isn’t working. [Amendment 44] is a good first step toward forcing government to abandon an approach that just doesn’t work.”

In the past few years it’s been fashionable among Christians to ask, “What would Jesus do?” When I think about the price he paid for our freedom, I find it hard to believe he would use the power of the state to force people to abstain from drugs.

Do Christians need a nose job?

2006-11-01T16:41:00.000-07:00

WARNING: the following link may be offensive to Republicans and Democrats. In fact, there are probably few people who won’t be offended. Visit at your own risk.

Christians Need a Nose Job, by Coach Dave Daubenmire

PS: I apologize in advance for those who will be offended.

Dear Brother Pastor: Dare To Be A Micaiah

2006-10-25T17:15:00.000-06:00

by Pastor Chuck Baldwin
October 24, 2006

Today's column is a heart-felt appeal to my pastor-brethren. If there was ever a time when God's men in America needed to stand independently and courageously for that which is right, it is now. And if we, the pastors and preachers of America, will not stand for what is right, how can anyone else be expected to stand? Specifically, are we God's men, or have we become the lackeys for powerful politicians? I fear that in far too many instances, it is the latter.

Throughout history, God's true champions were stalwart, independent men. Men who could not be bought or bribed. Men who chose the life of unpopularity or even prison rather than kowtowing to kings or potentates. Men such as the Old Testament prophet Micaiah.

We all remember the story of Micaiah, don't we? Micaiah was the prophet who warned Ahab and Jehoshaphat regarding their imminent battle at Ramoth-gilead recorded for us in II Chronicles chapter 18.

What fascinates me about the story of Micaiah is that all the rest of the prophets, some 400 of them, said only what the king wanted to hear. Not one of them was willing to speak the truth. Not one of them was willing to defy the king's wishes. Not one of them was willing to put their allegiance to God above their friendship with the king. Then Micaiah entered the story.

Micaiah stood boldly before the king of Judah and the king of Israel and courageously told the truth. He did not try to curry favor with the king. He did not try to ingratiate himself with the king. He courageously spoke truth to power. And, as one might expect, he was not rewarded for it-at least not in this life. In spite of this, Micaiah stood as a true champion of God. A man among men. God's man.

Where are the Micaiahs today? Especially among our national Christian leaders, where is Micaiah?

It seems that many of our pastors and Christian leaders today are far more interested in not offending the powers that be than they are in speaking the uncompromising message of truth. This is especially true if the political power has an "R" behind his name. It doesn't seem to matter to a tinker's dam whether that man promotes policies that expand abortion-on-demand, that further legitimize aberrant sexual lifestyles, that leave our borders open to terrorists, that eviscerate constitutional freedoms, or that explode the size and scope of the federal government. Because he is a Republican, he is "good" and must not be opposed.

In such a case, have we preachers not become glorified politicians? Have we not become the servants of men?

In the story of Micaiah, it was both the "good" king Jehoshophat and the "evil" king Ahab that had made the decision to disobey God and imperil the lives of their countrymen. Both the "good" king and the "evil" king needed to hear the truth. And while they heard it not from the rest of Israel's prophets, they heard the truth from Micaiah. Both men heard the truth from Micaiah.

Whether a president, senator, or congressman is a "good" Republican or an "evil" Democrat, they need to hear a consistent message of truth from God's preachers. Our political leaders (of both parties) need to be held accountable for their misdeeds, their erroneous policies, and their unconstitutional decisions. If today's pastors would be as concerned about speaking the truth as they are about who is being elected and about not offending Republicans, our country would be much better off. Much better.

I dare say that if Al Gore or John Kerry had been elected President, they would not have been allowed to do half of what George W. Bush has gotten away with, because pastors and Christian leaders of every stripe would have shouted their disapproval from the housetops. But because Mr. Bush has an "R" behind his name, those same pastors and Christian leaders sit fat and happy-and silent. The result: George W. Bush has inflicted more lasting harm on America than Bill Clinton ever thought about inflicting. That's not an affront to George W. Bush, nor is it praise for Bill Clinton. It's an indictment upon America's pulpits.

There is another element to this discussion, one that almost everyone seems to have forgotten. When the Jewish leaders brought accusation against Jesus to Pilate, do you remember what their charge was? It was, "If you don't crucify Jesus, you are not a friend to Caesar, because Jesus is not a friend to Caesar." The fear that Pilate might be regarded as unfriendly to Caesar and that Jesus was already regarded as not being a friend to Caesar caused Pilate to consent to Jesus' death.

Forget that Caesar had enslaved the Jewish people. Forget that he was their oppressor. Forget that they labored under the heavy hand of Caesar's tyranny and taxation. They, the Jewish leaders, had formed a friendly alliance with Caesar, an alliance from which they personally greatly benefited. Therefore, they would let no one, not even their Messiah and Savior, jeopardize their friendship with Caesar.

It grieves me deeply to report that, in my estimation, this desire to be Caesar's friend has eclipsed the willingness of many of today's pastors and preachers to speak the truth. More than that, they even seem willing to join those forces that seek to silence anyone who dares challenge Caesar. Once again, especially if Caesar has an "R" behind his name.

We preachers must remain independent from the fetters of the desire for popularity or political approval. We must not give in to the temptation to become glorified politicians. As preachers, we have but one task: preach the truth, stand for the truth, and defend the truth. Whether the truth hurts Democrats or Republicans should not concern us. Whether we are considered "friends" to presidents should not matter. Who knows how Israel's history might have been changed for the better if those 400 prophets had followed Micaiah's example and not groveled before Ahab. Who knows how Germany's history might have been changed for the better if that nation's 14,000 pastors had followed the example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and not groveled before Hitler.

By the same token, America's future will be largely determined by which example today's pastors and preachers decide to follow. Dear brother pastor: dare to be a Micaiah.

© Chuck Baldwin

This article is available at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Tyranny and lawlessness: Can God ordain that which He hates?

2006-10-25T08:05:00.000-06:00

Many Christians use Romans 13:1-7 as a proof text for the notion that it is God who brings bloodthirsty tyrants, brutal dictators, and oppressive regimes to power. Yet nowhere do these particular words appear in the actual text. On the contrary, the passage sets forth the proper role of government as a ministry of justice, instituted by God for the punishment of the wicked and the protection and praise of good citizens. If rulers are supposed to be God’s servants, it makes no sense to believe that so-called “authorities” which are in rebellion against Him were established by Him.

Romans 13 does not grant rulers open-ended powers to commit murder and mayhem. It does not validate governments which break the law or engage in acts that God hates—destroying innocent human life, showing partiality to the wicked or denying justice to the poor. When a civil government oppresses good people and fails to punish evil, it is no longer “God's servant to do you good. . . an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Rather, it is an abomination that is operating in complete opposition to the Lord and His good purposes. “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 17:15, NKJ).

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 warns of a coming “Man of Lawlessness” who will proclaim himself to be God. Likewise, the prophet Daniel describes a future king who will seize power through intrigue (11:21). This usurper “will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods” (11:36, NIV). If we accept the idea that every person who happens to sit on a throne—no matter how depraved, blasphemous or violent—derives his power from God, then we are saying He is the author of evil and lawless governments. We are saying that He ordains rulers who would blaspheme Him and set themselves above Him—that He would bring into existence that which He hates.

Tyranny is essentially lawlessness. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a tyrant as a ruler “unrestrained by law; a usurper of sovereignty.” Since God is our Lawgiver, He cannot be the author of lawlessness. If the purpose of government is to promote law and order in society, it follows that God would not ordain a government that openly flouts His laws by committing evil and bloodshed against innocent people.

At a time when most of earth’s inhabitants were oppressed by ruthless kings and pharaohs, the Law of Moses set forth the radical idea that all people—including rulers—are subject to the laws of God (Libertystory.net). “But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” (Exodus 18:21). Based on this verse, rulers are required to meet God’s standards of righteousness and justice.

As Pastor Weaver writes in The Christian and Civil Government,

“The jurisdiction, the authority and the power of God have no limits. But every delegated authority has certain limits. The power of God is infinite. The authority that God delegates is finite, it is limited; it is confined. There is absolutely no boundary to God’s authority, but there are boundaries to the delegated authority of man. God alone is sovereign. All kings, all princes, all governments are His vassals, His delegates.” Therefore, “every authority that exists is accountable and answerable to God” (4-5).

In the Book of Revelation, Satan is depicted as a “dragon” who “gave the beast [i.e., the antichrist] his power and his throne and great authority. . . Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast” (13:2-4, NIV). The beast also “was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation” (7).

According to these verses, who gave authority to the beast? Clearly it wasn’t God; it was Satan, the ultimate tyrant and usurper. For Christians who believe that God establishes every so-called government that will ever exist, this passage should create quite a quandary.

Satan attempted to overthrow the Lord’s sovereignty by force. It did not end well for him. He was cast out of heaven and will ultimately be thrown into the lake of fire.

Likewise, “The righteous ruler, not the tyrant, will remain in power. A tyrant will inevitably face the danger of rebellion and even assassination. A righteous administration, on the other hand, pleases the people and God, who preserves it” (From the NIV Bible Concordance).

God is not a monster: the purpose of civil government

2006-10-13T12:58:00.000-06:00

“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”—Genesis 1:31

“For everything God created is good” (1 Timothy 4:4).

If everything God made is good, then logically it follows that He cannot be the author of evil. And if God cannot be the author of evil, how is it possible that He would purposefully establish evil governments or install wicked leaders into office?

The answer, I believe, is that He doesn’t.

The first biblical reference to earthly government occurs in Genesis 9:5-6: “And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”

Here we see that the purpose of government is to punish evil acts of aggression against innocent persons. Romans 13 reiterates the God-ordained role of government as a minister of justice:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (vv. 3-4).

Likewise, 1 Peter 2:13 defines rulers as those “who are sent by [God] to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.”

By its definition, then, civil government was created as God’s minister to serve humanity: to restrain evil by punishing criminals and to protect/commend law-abiding citizens. It was never intended to be used for evil or to hurt people. Bible commentator Matthew Henry wrote, “In the general course of human affairs, rulers are not a terror to honest, quiet, and good subjects, but to evildoers. Such is the power of sin and corruption, that many will be kept back from crimes only by the fear of punishment.”

“God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates … for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and the encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers”(Lex Rex, A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants, in “Of the Civil Magistrate”).

Since government was instituted by God to uphold justice, it seems logical to conclude that governments which abuse their powers and commit injustice are not ordained of God. Once a government ceases fulfilling its God-ordained mandate to be a minister of justice, it is no longer of God, because it is in rebellion against Him.

Indeed, a careful reading of Romans 13 reveals that while God ordained the institution of government, not all governments are ordained of God. This is especially apparent in the NIV Bible, which translates Romans 13:1 as: “…there is no authority except that which God has established” (emphasis mine). In other words, the only legitimate authorities are those that have been instituted by God, that is, those who uphold justice and defend the innocent from aggression.

For those who insist on believing that a righteous God would raise up tyrants such as Nero, Caligula, Oliver Cromwell, Mao Tze Tung, Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein, let’s take a look at Hosea 8:4:

“They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.”

This verse clearly states that not everyone who happens to sit on a throne—or in the Oval Office—was put in that position by God. There is a vast difference between duly constituted authority, which is established by God, and power that has been gained illegitimately, or usurped. Tyrants always operate outside the law and see themselves as being above the law, including God's Law. In fact, one of the definitions of a tyrant in Merriam-Webster is "a ruler unrestrained by law…"

The God who sent His precious Son to die for me is not a monster. He is completely good, kind, loving, and just. If God put bloodthirsty dictators into power, it would make Him the author of evil. This is not only heresy—it is also blasphemy.

What of verses which appear to state that God raises up all political leaders, regardless of how corrupt and degenerate they are? Let’s look at some of these passages.

“By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, and even all the judges of the earth” (Proverbs 8:15-16).

“No one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt a man. But it is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another” (Psalm 75:6-7).

“He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them” (Daniel 2:21).

At first glance, we might conclude that these Scriptures are saying that anyone who happens to be in political office was specifically placed in that position by the Lord. But, taken in context with Romans 13 and related passages, what they are really saying is that all legitimate authority is derived from God. As Pastor John Weaver writes in The Christian and Civil Government, “If God does not give an individual authority, then he does not have any authority” (p. 4). It is God who puts rulers in power, but just because someone claims to be in charge does not mean he has received any real authority from God.

Think of it this way: if someone other than your boss started ordering you around, would that mean this person had legitimate authority to do so? When the Nazis were sending men, women and children to the gas chambers, were they acting under God’s authority?

I think the answer is obvious.

Relevant Scriptures:

“The God of Israel said, ‘…He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Samuel 23:2-3, NKJ).

The queen of Sheba to King Solomon: “Praise be to the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the LORD's eternal love for Israel, he has made you king, to maintain justice and righteousness” (1 Kings 10:8-9).

“It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness” (Proverbs 16:12, NKJ).

“Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with you? They gather against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood. But the Lord has been our defense … He has brought on them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; the Lord shall cut them off” (Psalm 94: 20-30).

“‘Woe to the city of oppressors, rebellious and defiled! She obeys no one, she accepts no correction. She does not trust in the LORD, she does not draw near to her God. Her officials are roaring lions; her rulers are ravening wolves, who leave nothing for the morning. . . The LORD within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail, yet the unrighteous know no shame’” (Zephaniah 3:1-5).

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless” (Isaiah 10:1-4).
“The LORD enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of the people: “It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?” declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty” (Isaiah 3:10-15).

Recommended reading:

The Christian and Civil Government, by Pastor John Weaver

A Christian Manifesto, by Francis Schaeffer

Lex, Rex: A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People, by Rev. Samuel Rutherford (also known as The Law and the Prince)

Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Pol Pot: Ordained of God?

2006-10-11T12:11:00.000-06:00

This question inevitably came to mind as I was pondering my answer to a question posed in the blog Under the Crimson Line.

Ever since I can remember, I have abhorred government tyranny. Perhaps this is related to my father’s description of his childhood in Nazi Germany, where my grandmother kept their Jewish ancestry a closely guarded secret—or so she thought. At the end of World War II, she learned that their names were on a list of people who were next in line for a concentration camp.

After I became an evangelical Christian, I was startled to hear fellow believers say that God places all political leaders in power—even those who slaughter millions of innocent people. Because of my family history and passion for justice, I struggled with the idea that whoever wields a nation’s military might was appointed by God. I couldn’t understand how a perfect, holy, and righteous Lord would appoint rulers who would govern contrary to His laws and destroy those who were created in His image.

In the past century, nearly 170 million innocent civilians were murdered by their own governments (Death by Government, R. J. Rummel). In many countries, Christians are suffering unspeakable cruelty at the hands of political leaders. Is this ordained of God? Since God is completely good, fair, and just, what are we to make of Scriptures—such as Exodus 9:16 and Habakkuk 1:6—which appear to indicate that He raises up tyrants and mass murderers to rule over nations? What of Romans 13:1, which seems to suggest that anyone who happens to be in power, no matter how ruthless, sadistic, or wicked, is “God’s man for this hour”? How can we explain this to people who have endured degradation, brutality, torture, and rape at the hands of their rulers? Will we reach them with the love of God by telling them that He is the author of evil in the political realm?

For nearly fifteen years, I asked God for answers. I have spoken with pastors, Bible study teachers, a military chaplain, elected officials, government agents, and police officers, asking for their insights into this issue. I have read the heartbreaking stories of people who have suffered horrible injustices at the hands of their governments—until I could hardly stand to read more. Most importantly, I have cried out to my Savior, asking Him to show me the truth in His Word and through His Holy Spirit.

In upcoming posts, I will share some of what I’ve learned as I sought God’s heart about the purpose of civil government.

Columbus the Christ-bearer

2006-10-09T12:35:00.000-06:00

The following article was written by Tom Flannery on October 9, 2006 in World Net Daily.

"Columbus discovered America by prophecy rather than by astronomy," the New Encyclopedia Britannica quite accurately explains.

It was, after all, the Holy Bible that convinced Columbus beyond any shadow of a doubt that the earth is round. Some 800 years before Christ's incarnation (and more than 2,200 years before Columbus' own birth), the prophet Isaiah had written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit: "It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the earth. ..." (Isaiah 40:22, emphasis mine)

Columbus, whom we honor in the United States today, may not have had a great deal of schooling when he first read this verse of Scripture, but he understood basic geometry well enough to realize that a circle, any way you looked at it, had to be round.

"Let God be true, but every man a liar," the Bible declares in Romans 3:4, and Columbus felt called by God to prove to the world that man had miscalculated and that God's Word had been true all along. The earth was a circumference!

Because he was unlearned and untried at sea, Columbus sought God's blessing and anointing for the mission.

"I prayed to the most merciful Lord about my heart's great desire," Columbus wrote, "and He gave me the spirit and the intelligence for the task: seafaring, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, skill in drafting spherical maps and the placing correctly of cities, rivers, mountains and ports. I also studied cosmology, history, chronology and philosophy."

His mission began when a ship that he was serving aboard was sunk in a battle off Cape St. Vincent in 1476 and he alone survived by swimming all the way to Portugal with only an oar to help him, eventually coming ashore (of all places) near one of the world's great academies for would-be sailors.

As the New Encyclopedia Britannica notes: "His arrival in Portugal, miraculously saved from the wreck ... and his landing so close to the rock of Sagres, where Prince Henry the Navigator had established his academy of seamanship, seem to justify his sense of having been chosen." So, too, did his first name, Christopher, which means "Christ-bearer."

It was in Portugal that Columbus first presented his proposal to sail west to the Indies, an idea that brought him little more than scorn and derision. As he later wrote: "It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures ... encouraging me continually to press forward."

Columbus moved on to Spain, where he was granted an audience with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in 1485. They decided to establish a special commission of "learned men and mariners" to study the proposal, which the commission ultimately rejected in 1490 as impossible.

In his "Book of Prophecies," Columbus recounted: "I spent seven years in the royal court, discussing the matter with many persons of great reputation and wisdom in all the arts, and in the end they concluded that it was all foolishness, so they gave it up."

However, Columbus held to the promises of God being fulfilled "from everlasting to everlasting" without fail, continuing: "In support of this, I offer the Gospel text Matthew 24:35, in which Jesus said that all things would pass away, but not His marvelous Word. He also affirmed that it was necessary that all things be fulfilled that were prophesied by Himself and by the prophets."

In 1492, the unwavering faith of Columbus was rewarded. He was recalled before King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, and his journey to the Indies was approved. The rest, as they say, is history.

Although best remembered for discovering America, it should also be remembered that Columbus' life was one filled with great accomplishments.

He discovered the best way to make use of the North Atlantic wind system for transatlantic sailing, began the European settlement of the West Indies, discovered the continental coast of South America, and explored the western Caribbean and revealed its landlocked outline.

Most importantly, he founded the land upon which God established a republic based on the biblical principles contained in our Declaration of Independence (where all people are endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights), a country which has evangelized the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ over the past two centuries. As it turned out, Columbus the "Christ-bearer" discovered a nation that would in time bear (bring) Christ to all nations.

And whereas many politically correct "history" textbooks produced in recent years portray him as a man consumed by his own ego and driven by personal ambition, that's not what you find in Columbus' own writings.

In his own words: "I am a most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous presence.

"The working out of all things has been assigned to each person by our Lord, but it all happens according to His sovereign will. ... Oh what a gracious Lord who desires that people should perform from Him those things which He holds Himself responsible!

"Day and night, moment by moment, everyone should express to Him their most devoted gratitude."

Click here for the URL.

Getting caught in a lie

2006-10-05T16:39:00.000-06:00

Apparently, it is difficult for some elected officials to recognize when they have told a lie. Click
here and here for more details on the Foley scandal and what appears to have been a cover-up.

Where is the outrage?

2006-10-04T16:09:00.000-06:00

When NBC plans a program involving Madonna wearing a crown of thorns, the Religious Right sends a million e-mails to the network demanding that the show be canceled. But when it is reported that a Republican congressman has tried to seduce teenage boys, the Religious Right isn't nearly as indignant--not even when it becomes public knowledge that the Republican Speaker of the House knew about this conduct for three years and did nothing.

Where is the outrage?

I plan to blog about this in more depth at a later date but thought I'd throw this out now as fodder for discussion.

The injustice of illegal immigration

2006-10-03T12:26:00.000-06:00

Illegal immigration is a hot-button issue for many people on both sides of the debate, but what does the Bible say about it? Would Jesus tell us to flout our nation’s immigration laws in order to love our neighbors on the other side of the border? Do Old Testament prohibitions against mistreating aliens require our government to welcome every foreigner who wants to live here? How do immigrants who come here legally feel about rewarding those who break the rules to enter our country? What about American citizens who have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants? Should we deny justice to our own citizens in order to show compassion to those who are here illegally?

Christianity Today addressed several of these questions in a recent article by James Edwards: "Seeking Biblical Principles to Inform Immigration Policy.” Click here for the full text.

Who is head of the church—Jesus or the state?

2006-09-28T17:05:00.000-06:00

This is another question raised by critics of 501 (c)3 status, including Peter Kershaw, author of “The Church and Caesar: A Look at Incorporation and 501 (c)3.” To read more, click here.

The church's mandate: speak truth to power

2006-09-26T12:33:00.000-06:00

The following article, "Religious Right Needs To Defend All Saints Episcopal," was written by Pastor Chuck Baldwin and is available online.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that "the Internal Revenue Service ordered a liberal Pasadena parish to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates.

"All Saints Episcopal Church and its rector, the Rev. Ed Bacon, have until Sept. 29 to present the sermons, newsletters and electronic communications.

"The IRS investigation was triggered by an antiwar sermon delivered by its former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, at the church two days before the 2004 presidential election. The summons even requests utility bills to establish costs associated with hosting Regas' speech. Bacon was ordered to testify before IRS officials Oct. 11."

That Rev. Regas and All Saints Episcopal represent a liberal point of view must not cloud the fact that what is at stake here is religious liberty. From the very beginning of our constitutional republic, America's pastors and ministers have courageously engaged the culture. We must not allow the IRS, or any other government agency, to now trample this heritage.

Can one imagine the potential outcome for religious freedom should the IRS be allowed to stifle religious dissent? Think of the voter registration drives, the get-out-the-vote campaigns, and public forums that take place in America's churches.

Beyond that, there is not a local, state, or federal election that takes place that ministers of every stripe and color do not boldly express their convictions and provide spiritual consideration on salient issues that will be directly affected by those elections. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, liberal, conservative, moderate, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish: they all freely voice their concerns. I say, more power to them!

Yet, there is an even bigger issue here. Not only do ministers have a fundamental right under our Constitution to speak freely regarding their agreements or disagreements with "the powers that be," they also have a moral and Biblical mandate to do so.

I'm sure the IRS would accuse John the Baptist of "getting into politics" when he denounced King Herod's adultery. However, not only did John keep preaching, but the Lord Jesus commended John, saying there was none greater than he ever born.

The truth is, it is virtually impossible for a minister to faithfully preach the Scriptures without dealing with current events, including those that bleed over into politics. For example, the Bible condemned abortion a long time before it became a football in American politics. Therefore, to be faithful to Scripture, preachers must deal with the abortion issue.

What about homosexuality, adultery, greed, falsehood, thievery, etc.? When those issues become political or impact political candidates and office holders, must preachers remove themselves from the debate? Perish the thought.

Preachers form America's collective conscience and provide a collective moral authority for those in and out of politics. To demand that preachers be silent on political issues would be to throw America into a moral and spiritual vacuum from which there would be no return.

However, under President George W. Bush, the IRS has become extremely aggressive in using acts of intimidation against churches and other organizations. During the past two years alone, using its new enforcement program, the Political Activity Compliance Initiative, the IRS has investigated more than 200 organizations nationwide, including 40 churches.

The IRS attack against All Saints Episcopal has occurred even though Rev. Regas' sermon "did not endorse or oppose any of the candidates, [but] addressed the moral and religious implications of various social issues facing the nation at the time." Good grief! There is hardly a pastor in the country that has not done the same thing. Will all of us pastors and our churches be the next targets of the IRS?

I doubt that I have much in common with the Rev. Bob Edgar, an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church and general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA, but I whole-heartedly agree with him when he said, "I'm outraged. Preachers ought to have the liberty to speak truth to power." Amen!

If this were the Clinton administration's IRS threatening a conservative evangelical church, the Religious Right would be screaming to the heavens. Yet, the Religious Right needs to look beyond the liberalism of the Rev. Regas and All Saints Episcopal and come quickly and vehemently to their defense, realizing that religious liberty either applies to us all or it applies to none of us at all. As someone once said so well, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."

The American political system is not threatened by Rev. Regas, but religious liberty is most assuredly being threatened by the Internal Revenue Service. The Religious Right, especially, needs to realize that fact.

© Chuck Baldwin
September 19, 2006

The 501(c)3 Church: a Creature of the State?

2006-09-22T17:17:00.000-06:00

The following is an excerpt from “501 (c)3: Is it worth it?” by Russ Jones, editor/publisher of the Colorado Springs Chronicle, September 2006.

Two primary institutions built the American Republic: the Christian family and the colonial pulpit. From America’s founding days in Plymouth and Jamestown and well into the 19th century, families gathered in their local congregations to hear sermons before selecting its civil leaders. The preacher would extol the duties of the magistrate before the Lord, and the criterion whereby citizens may select such men for office. These messages were called Election Day sermons. They were the vehicle whereby the local church communicated to the Christian people of the land the God-ordained vision for selecting as leaders only those men who fear the Lord.

But recently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been warning churches and nonprofit organizations that improper campaigning in the upcoming political season could endanger their tax-exempt status. In notices to more than 15,000 tax-exempt organizations [and] numerous church denominations, the agency has detailed its new enforcement program, called the Political Activity Compliance Initiative. Under the initiative, the IRS plans to expedite investigations into claims of improper campaigning, no longer waiting for an annual tax return to be filed or the tax year to end before launching a probe.

“The rule against political campaign intervention by charities and churches is long established,” IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson said in a statement. “We are stepping up our efforts to enforce it.”

Recently, OMB Watch, a Washington-based nonprofit government watchdog group, issued a report criticizing the IRS enforcement program and said the program could prompt retaliatory and harassment complaints unless the agency develops clear guidelines. “I don’t think this is a case of bad faith,” said Kay Guinane, author of the report. “I just think it’s a poorly structured program.”

The Internal Revenue Service, however, has assumed the role of monitoring what houses of worship say. In 1954, at the height of the McCarthy era, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson sought a legislative route to silence some of his anticommunist critics. Encouraged by Johnson, the U.S. Senate passed a major tax-code revision by a voice vote. Although Johnson’s revision was targeted specifically at nonprofit groups that were contesting his seat, churches—which also are nonprofit organizations—fell under the little-noticed new tax code provisions. The code barred all tax-exempt groups—including churches—from participating in political activities. The penalty: loss of tax-exempt status. Some would say a heavy price to pay for exercising their free speech rights.

In Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574), the U.S. Supreme Court noted the following about the government’s intended purpose for the 501c3:

The Court asserts that an exempt organization must “be in harmony with the public interest,” must have a purpose that comports with “the community conscience,” and must not act in a manner “affirmatively at odds with [the] declared purposes of the whole Government.” Taken together, these phrases suggest that “the primary function of a tax-exempt organization is to act on behalf of the Government in carrying out governmentally approved policies.”

While it may be appropriate for many nonprofit organizations to waive their right to intervene in political campaigns, or influence legislation, is this the right thing for a church to do?

Many believe waiving such rights is to waive one’s freedom of speech. Waiving one’s right to influence legislation is especially problematic. The inevitable result has been that the church has abandoned its responsibility to influence its elected representatives to craft legislation that is biblical and that comports with the Constitution. Many would say the unchurched, and even those who are openly hostile to the church, have taken over that influence and are now seeing to it that their legislators craft statutes which are unbiblical, immoral, and unconstitutional.

John Adams stated while he was president, “The church is the moral compass of society.” But in order to remain a true and faithful compass, the church must remain separate and independent of the influences of that society, particularly its civil government. It must be a “free church.” Should the church become subordinate, or in any way controlled or co-opted by the civil government (a “state-church” system), it can no longer effectively serve as that society’s moral compass.

State-church systems are inevitably compromised and governed by pragmatism, rather than genuine Christian faithfulness. It should surprise no one that the 501c3 church in America has lost its prophetic voice, has lost the respect it once held, and is no longer “the moral compass of society.”

Churches are not required to register as 501c3 organizations, though many of them do. Some say pastors today have become silent in matters of political and social issues for fear of losing the church’s tax-exempt status.

Mr. Jones concludes his article with the following questions:

1) Does taking a deduction for supporting God’s work pervert our reason for giving?

2) Is God asking us to take a stand?

3) Is the Christian church to be blamed for the low moral standing of our elected officials?

4) Is the tax-exempt number the reason we as a body are not affecting our nation’s moral standing?

5) What would God have us do?

501(c)3—worth the price?

2006-09-22T12:37:00.000-06:00

The Colorado Springs edition of The Chronicle, a Christian newspaper, posed this question in its September issue. Written by editor/publisher Russ Jones, the article begins by citing the Tax Code for nonprofit organizations:

“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all 501(c)3 organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly and indirectly participating in, or interfering in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

According to Jones, “Since 2004, the IRS has investigated more than 200 organizations.” On September 15, All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, received an Internal Revenue Service summons ordering the church to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates. Writing for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Fred Ortega reports that “the congregation. . . cheered defiantly when it was suggested that the church might not comply with [the] summons, foreshadowing what could turn into a legal battle between all Saints and the federal government. At stake is the church’s tax-exempt status as a religious organization.”

Ortega says the summons resulted from a guest sermon by former rector George Regas, given two days before the November 2004 election, in which he criticized several of President Bush’s policies, including the war in Iraq, but “stopped short of endorsing either presidential candidate.” The church’s current rector, the Rev. Ed Bacon, said that if the IRS is successful in its efforts against All Saints, other religious groups across the country would be inhibited from speaking out on politically charged moral issues.

“Bacon suggested that ignoring the IRS request would give the church the chance to make its case in a court of law, a prospect which drew applause and a standing ovation from the congregation, which filled nearly every pew in the church,” says Ortega.

In Matthew 22, when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by asking him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus silenced them with the exhortation to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (verse 21). Based on this passage, are we to assume that All Saints Episcopal is obligated to give the IRS everything it is asking for? Are churches obliged to remain silent on the important political issues of the day if Caesar commands their silence? When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” does that mean everything—including the Church itself—belongs to Caesar? How would pastors in colonial times have responded to Caesar’s demands?

My next few posts will continue this discussion.

Why do Christians love telling the world how offended we are?

2006-09-21T16:39:00.000-06:00

Christians in the West, and America in particular, are spoiled. We really have no idea what it’s like to suffer for our faith, yet we imagine we are persecuted when lost and hurting people are used by the enemy to shock and offend us. A case in point is an e-mail alert sent out by Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link, calling upon Christians to complain to NBC about a special it plans to air that features Madonna wearing a sparkly crown of thorns on a mirror-covered cross. Focus wants believers to tell the network’s entertainment president that “mocking the crucifixion of Christ for the sake of controversy-driven publicity and ratings is offensive to Christians.”

As Christians, why are we so quick to take offense? Is this the message we want to send people who are desperately in need of Christ’s love and forgiveness? Is this how Jesus taught us to evangelize—by telling the lost how much they offend us? Will complaining about NBC’s depiction of Madonna in a crown of thorns lead one network executive to Christ? I doubt it. If anything, it will alienate the very people we should be trying to reach with His love.

Instead of whining to NBC about how “offensive” their programming is, why not tell them how much Jesus loves them? How about showing them the same forgiveness Jesus demonstrated when He took our sins to the cross and said, “Father, forgive them…”?

Now wouldn’t that be a radical message?

Test nonlethal weapons on U.S. citizens, official says

2006-09-18T16:42:00.000-06:00

WASHINGTON - Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before they are used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions in the international community over any possible safety concerns, said Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne.

"(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

The Air Force has funded research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service isn't likely to spend more money on development until injury issues are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.

Nonlethal weapons can weaken people if they are hit with the beam.

Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also disable some electronic devices.

By Lolita C. Balder
Associated Press, Sept. 13, 2006

This article is availabe online here.

Who is the enemy?

2006-09-15T12:25:00.000-06:00

by Omar Al-Rikabi

I have been on the road a lot in the last three months, taking different road-trips to New Orleans, New York City, Nashville, and Dallas. Constantly in the shadow of the endless line of 18-wheelers, I noticed that one particular trucking company had this sign posted on most of their trucks:

Support our troops whenever we go!
No aid or comfort to the enemy!

No way!

So who is the enemy?

Last summer my older cousin Ali was able to come in from Ohio to be at our wedding. I think it was really good for my dad to have someone from back home who was able to be there, and he filled in as my grandmother's escort, sitting with her on the front row.

Ali was forced to serve in the Iraqi Army in the first Gulf War. Other cousins were also conscripted, stationed on the front lines and in Kuwait City. Some of them were rounded up in the mass-surrenders after the ground war began, and they all made it home. But Ali had a different story. He was a field surgeon on the front lines with the Republican Guard. Sadaam thought that if he placed the medical units close enough to the rest of the soldiers then the Americans wouldn't bomb and shell them. He was wrong.

Somehow the Iraqis knew when the American ground troops would be coming over the dunes, and so they were given a five-day pass to go home to Baghdad and say their goodbyes. Ali knew it would be a meat-grinder, and he knew that under Sadaam desertion meant death and trouble for your family. So while he was in Baghdad he had another surgeon friend take out his perfectly good appendix. While he was in the hospital, his entire unit was annihilated.

Around that same time a Marine friend of mine named Nelson had been part of an artillery outfit that was shelling Iraqi positions inside Kuwait. Suddenly an Iraqi artillery shell slammed into the hood of the truck Nelson was standing next to, but it was a dud and didn't go off. He lived to come home and tell me that story.

Also at our wedding, only four rows back from Ali, was my friend Joe, who is an Army Ranger veteran. On the other side of the isle from Ali was one of my two mothers-in-law, whose stepbrother was part of the Army forces that moved through the same area of Kuwait where Ali had been. On another pew was my friend Johanna, whose husband has served in Afghanistan and is now training for Special Forces duty in the Middle East.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The best phrase came from a taxi driver in Cairo, right after the invasion of Iraq three years ago, who upon finding out that my brother was half Iraqi and half American said, "Ahhh ... is funny. Your country is attacking your country."

I have often become frustrated when I have heard people in my church make statements like, "Remember who we're fighting here," before they lead prayers for our military victory. A professor here at Asbury once said that the only two choices we have is to either "convert them or keep them from hurting us."

Well ... first of all you can't fight and win a "war on terror." Terrorism is a method, not a country or ideology. I once heard it said that fighting a war on terror is like having the flu and declaring a war on sneezing: you're only attacking the symptoms. As long as there have been people, there has been terrorism.

But what frightens me is the mindset in this country, and in the church, that seems to think terrorism was born and raised in the Middle East, and if we can take out the Muslim Arabs then the world will be a safer place. Put this idea up against the idea in large segments of the Arab world that America has, in a sense, created terror herself with her policies toward the Middle East. So the cycle continues, and we have "become a monster to defeat a monster."

So who is the enemy? I believe that on this side of the cross, according to the scriptures, that "we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12)

If you track through the whole story of Scripture, you see that while God may have fought battles on Israel's behalf in the Old Testament, the trajectory was always towards to the cross, which redeemed God's intention for creation. Jesus set for us an example of living and witnessing that intention through loving, serving, and forgiving our enemies. The way of Christ was not to kill and destroy those who had abused and killed him.

Imagine what would have happened if the entire mass community of Christians who prayed so fervently for our troops to "defeat the enemy" would have instead prayed against the real Enemy and for peace between humanity.

So who is the enemy? We must first remember that the enemies of America are not the enemies of God. I have Iraqi Army veteran family and U.S. Army veteran friends. I have been raised by Southern Methodists and Shiite Muslims. I cannot abdicate the gospel message of Christ to a bomb, but can only bear the cross: the ultimate battlefield victory over the Enemy.

Omar Al-Rikabi is the son of a Southern Methodist mother from Texas and a Shiite Muslim father from Iraq. He is in his final year of earning a Masters of Divinity degree from Asbury Theological Seminary, and a declared candidate for ordination in the United Methodist Church. His article appeared in Sohomail, an e-zine of Sojourners on September 14.

And now a note from Julie: Some of you may think that because I posted such an article on my blog, it means I am a pacifist. I am not. However, I do believe that far too many Christians embrace war rather than pray for peace. We pray for the annihilation of our enemies rather than their salvation. Even at my own church, I have heard intercessors pray that the bullets our solider's fire will hit their mark, because those bullets are flying on behalf of God. Whose God? The God who sent His only Son to die for the very people we are fighting? The God who said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"? The One who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers"? I am not saying that war is never justified. Nor am I saying that it's wrong to pray for victory. But I hope that in praying for our troops, we will not neglect to pray for those they are fighting.

The lottery no one wanted to win

2006-09-14T16:38:00.000-06:00

“The day New York’s Twin Towers were destroyed by hijacked planes, hundreds of widows were left destitute. During the feverish days following the attack, Congress established a billion-dollar compensation fund, and grieving widows became overnight millionaires…” In “The Curse of the 9/11 Widows,” Zoe Brennan reveals their heartbreaking stories of injustice, loneliness, and ruined family relationships.

Five years after 9/11: What does liberty mean?

2006-09-12T12:35:00.000-06:00

We hear a lot of rhetoric connecting the War on Terror to the battle for America's freedom, but what exactly does that concept mean? In another post from The Rutherford Institute, Rachel King, a professor at Harvard University School of Law, asks the same question. To read her article, click here.

PS: I do not support the International Criminal Court, a creation of the United Nations, which is referenced in the article.

Police brutality: the new American way?

2006-09-11T17:05:00.000-06:00

The following article, entitled “Totalitarianism, American-Style,” by John W. Whitehead, appeared in The Rutherford Institute’s Faith and Freedom Newsletter on 8/21/2006. As someone whose father-in-law was a police officer, I realize that many "peace officers," as they used to be known, are true public servants. But, as my father-in-law often acknowledged, there are those who have no regard for the lives or liberties of those they profess to serve.

With reports of police brutality cropping up nationwide, it’s little wonder that more and more Americans are concerned that law enforcement officials are becoming a law unto themselves.

In Rock Hill, S.C., a 75-year-old woman, who was suffering from arthritis and six broken ribs, was subjected to a 50,000-volt shock from a police taser gun because she had refused to leave a nursing home before making sure that a friend who lived there was safe.

In Portland, Ore., a 71-year-old woman was pepper-sprayed and tasered after trying to prevent her personal property from being removed from her yard after government officials determined that her yard was too unsightly.

And in Seattle, Wash., two police officers tasered an eight-month-pregnant woman during a traffic stop after she refused to sign a traffic ticket.

These incidents are not the norm. Unquestionably, there are many law-abiding police officers who strive to abide by their oath of honor to uphold the Constitution and serve and protect the citizens of their communities. And rarely do these public servants get the appreciation they deserve for their efforts to maintain the peace in our communities.

However, we are witnessing a change in the way that law enforcement views its role, from one that was a servant to the people to one that is the arm of an increasingly totalitarian government.

An incident in Miami during the 2003 Free Trade Area of the Americas summit highlights the problem.

Hundreds of mostly college-aged demonstrators had gathered to voice their concerns about the detrimental effect of a trade pact on developing countries. In anticipation of protests, police had equipped themselves with riot gear and guns designed to fire rubber bullets and prepared to face off with the demonstrators.

Coral Gables attorney Elizabeth Ritter joined the protesters on one of the summit’s final days. However, it wasn’t trade issues that prompted her to pick up a protest sign and join the throngs. She was upset because the police had all but shut down the city that week, including the courthouse. “My city, my hometown, was becoming a police state,” she said.

Video footage (see below) from that day shows Ritter walking alone, wearing a red suit jacket and waving a hastily drawn sign that proclaimed, “Fear Totalitarianism.” When approached by a squad of law enforcement officials in riot gear, Ritter turned to face them and raised her sign. The police began firing rubber bullets, which often leave welts and bruises and at close range can even break the skin. Ritter knelt down, using her sign as a shield. Five times she was shot, in the legs, upper body and shoulders. One of the rubber bullets tore through the sign and hit her directly on the head. Stunned, she stood up, facing the police, and asked, “Why did you hit me? Is a woman in a business suit a threat?”

In a police training video that was recorded the following day and only recently released, police officers are shown praising each other for shooting the summit protesters with rubber bullets. One policeman refers to the protesters as “scurrying cockroaches”; another jokes about a protester who was hit in the head with a rubber bullet, saying, “And the lady in the red dress…I don’t know who got her, but it went right through the sign and hit her smack dab in the middle of the head!” The police officers erupt in laughter.

A civilian panel investigating charges of excessive police force used at the 2003 summit has now concluded that police indiscriminately used weapons such as stun guns and conducted unlawful searches and arrests during the summit. Moreover, a number of lawsuits claiming that police officers used excessive force and made false arrests while attempting to control the crowds have been filed against the various law enforcement agencies, including the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, Miami Police and Miami-Dade Police. But it is the laughing response of the police officers in the training video, more than the riot gear, stun guns or the indiscriminate use of force to quell dissent at the summit, including rubber bullets, that has struck a nerve.

Riding roughshod over the Constitution is no laughing matter. With every incident of excessive police force that is allowed to occur unchecked, we slip further into a police state.

We should all heed the advice of the lady in the red dress: “Fear Totalitarianism.”

Available online.

Will your home—or church—be next?

2006-09-08T16:47:00.000-06:00

Elected Officials Threatening Property Rights

From Texas Straight Talk, Rep. Ron Paul's weekly column, September 4, 2006

In recent weeks I've written about the threat of rising property taxes posed by state and local governments hungry for more and more of your money; and the threat of widespread eminent domain actions posed by a planned North American superhighway running straight through Texas. It's clear that many political and business interests are only too willing to drive people literally out of their homes to make way for the grand schemes of those in power.

This is why every American needs to understand that property rights are the foundation of a free society. Without property rights, all citizens live subject to the whims of government officials. When government can seize your property without your consent, all of your other rights are negated. Our founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was being used to justify unholy alliances between private developers and tax-hungry local governments.

Now one year removed from the notorious Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation's highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. The silver lining, however, is that many Americans have been stirred to action and are demanding new state laws to prohibit the Kelo scenario from repeating itself in their cities.

The Kelo case demonstrates that local government can be as tyrannical as centralized government. Decentralized power is always preferable, of course, since it's easier to fight city hall than Congress. But government power is ever and always dangerous, and must be zealously guarded against. Most people in New London, Connecticut, like most people in America, would rather not involve themselves in politics. The reality is that politics involves itself with us whether we like it or not. We can bury our heads in the sand and hope things don't get too bad, or we can fight back when government treats us as its servant rather than its master.

Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property. I've introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation. But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas, could start by removing from office local officials who have so little respect for property rights.

www.house.gov/paul

Gay rights: Live and let live?

2006-09-05T17:30:00.000-06:00

This is a difficult subject for me to blog about because someone I am close to is gay, and I love this person dearly. The article featured in my blog today was written by someone who, like me, does not believe in using the power of the state to force unredeemed people—gay or straight—to behave in redeemed ways. However, the author, a Libertarian, contends that the current gay rights movement is no longer about defending the concept of “live and let live”; it’s about shoving religion into the closet. To read the article in full, click here.

The Devil made them do it!

2006-08-30T16:41:00.000-06:00

Vatican exorcist says Hitler and Stalin were possessed; click here to read the article in full.

Although this is probably a no-brainer for those of us who are aware of the reality of demons, I thought it was interesting to see such a perspective coming from the Vatican.

PS: I will be on vacation for a week so most likely I won’t be blogging during that time. But I’ll be sure to have a new installment upon my return—same bat time, same bat channel (to borrow a phrase from the campy “Batman” series of the ‘60s)!

Watch out for the sermon police!

2006-08-28T16:43:00.000-06:00

The following article appeared in Opinion Journal, The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Page, August 25, 2006.

The Taxman Goes to Church
Why is the IRS in the business of reading sermons?

When the Rev. George F. Regas delivered a sermon opposing the Iraq War in All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., two days before the 2004 presidential election, he expected to upset a few members of the congregation. Instead, he seems to have upset the Internal Revenue Service, which began an investigation that is still under way. All Saints isn't the only church to fall out of the good graces of the IRS.

Under the 1954 Revenue Act, 501(c)(3) organizations risk losing their tax-exempt status if they "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for political office." Over the past two years scores of organizations have faced scrutiny for allegedly mixing their political convictions with their religious ones. And this summer the IRS expanded a program it first launched in 2004 to take direct aim at political advocacy inside houses of worship.

The new crackdown, which the IRS calls the Political Activity Compliance Initiative, has so far put some 15,000 nonprofits--mostly churches--on notice that preaching politics puts them at risk of audits, fines or, in some cases, the loss of tax-exempt status. The IRS has also announced it will no longer wait for complaints to come in, but will instead take action "to prevent violations." It will be reviewing the content of sermons, it says, as well as the financial books of religious organizations. The free exercise of religion could now come with a hefty bill.

It is true that the prohibition on church-centered political activity is decades old. But it is also true, as the IRS admits, that there is no "bright line test" to determine what constitutes political activity. Churches have always tried to influence voters on moral issues. What is different now is that moral issues--abortion, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, war--are now hot political issues, and the IRS is pushing religious communities out of the debate.

Not that the blame rests solely with the IRS. Barry W. Lynn, director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, has pushed for the crackdown by filing complaints with the IRS and boasting that his group is committed to "keeping churches out of partisanship." For a man who supports nearly every effort to erect a wall of separation, he seems not to mind sending IRS agents into churches if it keeps ministers out of politics.

Amazingly, there has been hardly a peep of protest from Republicans. Judging by their silence, both the White House and the Republican National Committee seem oblivious to the stepped-up enforcement, even as it will likely hit their political base the hardest. The Missouri Catholic Conference, for example, is now coming under scrutiny for sending letters to state lawmakers opposing public funding for stem-cell research. The Rev. Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, has drawn complaints for allegedly supporting Republican candidates.

Not that everyone in Washington is keeping mum. North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones wants to get the IRS out of the business of policing religious speech. His proposed legislation to do just that has been stalled for six years, but he hopes that the federal agency's latest initiative--and the experience of Mr. Regas in Pasadena and thousands like him on both sides of the political spectrum--will break the political logjam. He told us that he considers efforts to control what is said from the pulpit to be "antidemocratic." Amen to that.

Available online.
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

When will the Religious Right wake up?

2006-08-25T09:55:00.000-06:00

One of my favorite bloggers recently called attention to President Bush’s latest compromise on an issue that is probably nearest and dearest to those who elected him to office: protection of the unborn (click here for details). Will American evangelicals, who have been Bush’s biggest support base, flood the White House with letters and calls of protest? Will they see this as a betrayal of everything “their man” claims to stand for?

While some conservative Christian groups, including Family Policy Network, have chastised the President for this compromise, I fear that many will remain silent. Once we put someone on a pedestal, it becomes almost impossible to remove the object of our idolatry. It’s far too painful. This is not the first time "Dubya" has bowed to the wishes of the political left, and there was little, if any, outrage from the Religious Right.

In one example, President Bush reneged on his nomination of Jerry Thacker to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. Thacker, a Christian, was infected with AIDS by his wife, who contracted it during a blood transfusion. Mr. Thacker has stated publicly that homosexuals need to repent and put their faith in Christ for salvation. In response to pressure from the gay lobby, Bush asked Thacker to remove his name from consideration. The president’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, stated, “The views that [Thacker] holds are far, far removed from what the president believes. The president’s view is that people with AIDS need to be treated with . . . compassion.” (Source: Operation Save America; see www.osa.org).

In this instance, Bush betrayed and maligned a fellow Christian, suffering from AIDS through no fault of his own and watching his wife and child succumb to the same disease. Is this the type of “compassion” Fleischer was talking about?

In addition, in a major betrayal of pro-life activists, President Bush sent Solicitor General Theodore Olsen to the Supreme Court to testify on behalf of NOW (National Organization for Women) in the NOW v. Scheidler case, in which NOW attempted to use racketeering charges against Christians who witness outside abortion clinics.

Finally, while many evangelicals were praying for Justice Roy Moore, President Bush publicly condemned Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments. And the president’s chief political consultant, Karl Rove, spearheaded the attack against Moore. (Source: One News, 8-28-03; newswithviews.com, 10-25-03).

Instead of protesting Bush’s ongoing appeasement of the abortion lobby, militant homosexual activists, and the forces that seek to stifle religious expression in the public square, evangelicals continued to gush over their “Christian” president. Will they finally wake up in the event of this latest compromise? Or will they continue to support a leader who has constantly broken faith with them?

To make your opinion heard, e-mail comments@whitehouse.gov.

U.N. Bible Study Guide Slams U.S.

2006-08-22T12:12:00.000-06:00

From Citizenlnk.org, August 17, 2006

The National Council of Churches (NCC), a liberal voice for mainline denominations, has published a study guide for churches to help end poverty around the world. It’s a noble goal, but some are troubled that principles in the guide are based on a United Nations campaign.

The council has developed a 64-page study guide that several mainline denominations are currently using in women’s Bible studies. More than 4,000 guides called Eradicating Global Poverty have been distributed by the NCC to Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran and American Baptist churches, among others.

The program, based on eight U.N. recommendations for fighting poverty, is something no Christian should have trouble with, according to Dan Webster, an NCC spokesman.

“This particular guide is based on Scripture,” he told Family News in Focus. “And is based, most of it, on Matthew 25, on helping the poor.”

But according to Janice Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America, the guide accuses the U.S. of not embracing the U.N.’s way of dealing with poverty – just throwing an ever increasing amount of money at the problem.

“They attack the United States as being very stingy,” she explained. “In fact they use the term ‘stingy’ and they say the United States has not done its fair share of helping people around the world.”

The truth is, apart from the U.N., the U.S. gives $34 billion a year to fight poverty, and is home to many world-relief organizations and missionaries who meet physical needs and bring the Gospel to underdeveloped nations.

“The solutions are in mission work where you send people to countries where they have never heard the Gospel before,” Crouse said. “You break the cycle of poverty by offering people the hope of Jesus Christ.”

Copyright © 2006 Focus on the Family.
All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

Available online here.

The Bondage of Sexual Freedom

2006-08-21T12:10:00.000-06:00

The following article is entitled “Dictatorship and Freedom,” by Rev. R.J. Rushdoony (August 14, 2006). It provides a fascinating perspective on the relationship between political tyranny and sexual license.

In almost every instance that totalitarianism has taken over a major country, it has done so in the name of liberty. People welcome tyranny in the belief that their liberties are being greatly increased.

In only one direction is their freedom increased, however, and it is the “freedom” to sin. When the Mazdakites took over the great Persian Empire and all but destroyed it, their appeal was to freedom, freedom for sexual communism, and freedom to seize all private property. Greece and Rome had earlier taken the same route: sexual freedom was given increasingly to people while their political liberties were removed, and their properties confiscated by taxation.

The Renaissance was an age of the triumph of dictators and widespread sexual freedom, when men thought they were liberated from God and free to do as they pleased. The triumph of Lenin was both preceded and attended by the rise of sexual freedom, and the same was true of Hitler.

The banner of sexual freedom is thus simply a deception which spells slavery. It leads men to forsake responsibility for license, and freedom for bondage. The increase of this so-called sexual freedom in our day is thus the prelude, if unchecked, for dictatorship and tyranny.

James calls God’s law “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25), because it is the obedience of faith which makes men strong and free. Freedom to sin is not freedom but slavery. It leads, not to the liberation, but to the enslavement of man and the disintegration of his society.

The only freedom which the sexual liberation movements produce is freedom for totalitarianism and tyranny. The world is being made safe for slavery by all such people.

Our freedom is in Christ. “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36).

copyright © 2005 The Chalcedon Foundation • www.chalcedon.edu • All Rights Reserved Worldwide.

Click here to view original article.

Navy Chaplain Fights for Right to Pray in Jesus' Name

2006-08-16T09:00:00.000-06:00

From crosswalk.com:
AgapePress reports a U.S. Navy chaplain says his attorney is asking a military judge to throw out a charge that he deliberately disobeyed an order by praying while in uniform at a press conference in front of the White House earlier this year. Lieutenant Gordon James Klingenschmitt, who has been fasting and lobbying for the right to pray in Jesus' name, was scheduled to appear in Norfolk, Virginia, for a court martial pre-trial hearing earlier this week. According to an AP report, Klingenschmitt requested a court martial rather than accept a reprimand for appearing in uniform at the March 30 press conference in Washington, DC.

The press conference featured Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and called on President Bush to issue an executive order affirming the right of chaplains to pray as they see fit. Klingenschmitt says all he did at this event while in uniform was to say a prayer for America's armed forces from the Book of Common Prayer, an invocation ending with the words "through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen." If found guilty, Klingenschmitt could be fined up to $35,000, or two-thirds of his annual salary. If the judge decides not to throw out the case, the court martial against the Navy chaplain will begin on September 11.

Pastor Risks Jail to Protest Edict against Feeding the Homeless

2006-08-14T12:26:00.000-06:00

An official with the Southern Baptist Convention says he's willing to go to jail, if necessary, to oppose a new ordinance prohibiting the distribution of free or low-cost food in Las Vegas city parks. Click here to read the full story.

So now we have a city government using the power of the state to stop churches from caring for the least of these. This is the exact opposite of what God ordained the government to do.

Any comments?

Christian Citizenship 101

2006-08-10T16:51:00.000-06:00

According to James Dobson, half the Christians in America are not registered to vote, and of those who are, only half go to the polls. In an age when atheistic and humanist governments have gained control of nations across the world, this statistic is frightening. It is even more alarming when we consider that nearly 170 million innocent people have been brutally murdered by these regimes ( Christians and Voting).

In addition, a study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life revealed that about two-thirds of Americans say their faith has little to do with their voting decisions (Pamphlet: “Why Christians Should Vote,” Focus on the Family). Is it any wonder that our religious liberties are under attack and the right to murder our children is encoded in our nation’s laws? Billy Graham was right when he said, “If America is to survive, we must elect more God-centered men and women to public office—individuals who will seek divine guidance in the affairs of state” (“Why Christians Should Vote”).

But there is much more we can do to help restore righteous government to America than simply casting our vote on Election Day. Following are a few areas in which we can exercise our responsibility to be salt and light in the political arena.

Study the U.S. Constitution and be prepared to defend it.

Learn about the issues without relying on the nightly news, which can be heavily biased against Christianity and constitutional government. Obtain Christian voter guides from sources you trust, and subscribe to independent news sources that are committed to reporting the truth. Some of my personal favorites are Focus on the Family’s Citizen Magazine (available at family.org), though sometimes it’s a little too far to the right for my Libertarian side; Christianity Today; World Net Daily; Christian Coalition of America Action Alert (actionalert@cc.org); and The New American Magazine.

Inform others about the issues by writing letters to the editor, blogging, or calling in to talk-radio shows. Ask your pastor’s permission to make voter guides available to the congregation.

Help ensure that godly people, committed to protecting and preserving our system of limited government, are elected to office—assuming they are competent. Beyond voting, consider running for office or supporting good candidates with your time or finances.

Join civic, community, or school organizations (PTA, school board, etc.) to influence decision makers. Sign up with watchdog organizations that are working strategically to preserve our God-given liberties. Two of my favorites are FIJA and The Rutherford Institute. I also recommend joining citizens groups that are dedicated to promoting responsible fiscal policy, such as TRIM, the National Taxpayers Union, or Citizens Against Government Waste.

Teach your children their civic responsibility (don’t assume they will learn this in school).

Intercede for government leaders. Pray for the conversion /removal of corrupt leaders.

Hold our elected leaders to account. Contact to praise or chastise.

Write or e-mail officials to voice your opinion about pending legislation. Contact candidates running for office to find out where they stand on current issues.

Promote government action that defends the rights of society’s most vulnerable members—the unborn, the disabled, and all those who cannot speak for themselves (a case in point would be the Terri Schiavo tragedy).

Oppose legislation that violates the Constitution.

Work to defeat/impeach corrupt judges, especially at the local and state level. At the national level, encourage Congress to be responsible in this area, since Congress has the power to impeach federal judges. “Bad judges are a nemesis to those who hold high moral principle to be a foundation of our society,” said Bruce Armstrong, a staff member at the U.S. C&MA National Office. “It doesn't help to ‘pass godly laws’ if the judicial system can arbitrarily overturn them—and pretty much without accountability.”

Respect the rights of others to live freely. Unless they are harming someone else, do not use the power of government to force unredeemed people to behave in redeemed ways. This undermines our Christian witness by alienating those we are trying to reach with God’s love.

If any of you out there can think of something I missed, just give me a holler.

On Politics, Theocracies, and the Kingdom of God

2006-08-09T13:26:00.000-06:00

Just what does the Kingdom of God have to do with this messy and often sordid business called politics? Even though the Scriptures command us to love our neighbors and help the oppressed, can’t we do so without getting all political about it?

Sometimes we can. By providing financial help, emotional support, and occupational-skills training, churches and para-church agencies can make it easier for unwed mothers to choose life for their children, thereby helping the fatherless. We can cry out to God for victims of government oppression, and we can pray that corrupt officials will come to know Christ or be removed from office.

But does there ever come a point when Kingdom concerns demand active political involvement? Since Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world, what justification is there for Christians to bring His influence to bear in the realm of politics? A number of evangelicals, including Chuck Colson, have argued that there is a biblical basis for Christian political engagement. Some have called this the “Cultural Commission” or the “Cultural Mandate.”

It originated in Genesis, when God commanded Adam, who represented all of humanity, to subdue (i.e., have dominion over) the earth. When Adam and Eve fell into sin, mankind’s God-given desire to exercise authority on the Lord’s behalf was twisted into the desire to become God. In his article “On the Necessity of Christian Engagement,” Darrell Dow writes, “Consequently, Christ’s representative and vicarious death was necessary to . . . allow redeemed men to bring the creation into submission to God. It is only in Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that man can fulfill his original mandate” ( Backwater Report).

Dr. David Alan Black, professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, said,

“One of the perversions of the gospel . . . is the emphasis upon personal evangelism to the exclusion of any social emphasis. For many evangelicals, the whole of the Christian experience is thought to be one’s personal relationship to God—often to the exclusion of one’s relationship with others or to the culture in general. Salvation is personal and individual, but it also social. Jesus is Lord of all. Politics, education, economics, the arts—all these are included under His divine Lordship.”

D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries, echoes this sentiment:

“As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, . . . our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors—in short, over every aspect . . . of human society.” (Coral Ridge pamphlet, www.coralridge.org)

Wait a minute! How can we do that without establishing a theocracy? Isn’t this about forcing our beliefs on others and legislating morality?

Essentially, all legislation is based on someone’s moral beliefs. If Christians don’t let their voices be heard through voting and other forms of political involvement, then only non-Christians will influence the formation of our nation’s laws. The morality of secular humanism, ethical relativism, atheism, the anti-life bioethics movement and a host of other ungodly ideologies will have free reign over our government without any voice to counter them.

At the same time, however, believers living in a constitutional republic such as ours must be careful not to infringe on the rights of those who do not share our beliefs. We must never use the power of the state to force unredeemed people to behave in redeemed ways. As Martin Luther King Junior said, “The Church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and critic of the state, never its tool” (“Strength to Love”).

While the civil government has a biblically ordained role to restrain and punish evil, Christians need to exercise discernment as they prayerfully consider what types of government action are appropriate and biblical in creating and preserving a just society where citizens have the maximum amount of freedom to choose the good. In my next post, we’ll discuss some practical ways that believers can use the political process to help maintain such a society.

The Good Lord Giveth, and the Tax Man Taketh It Away

2006-08-08T16:39:00.000-06:00

I thought I would take a break from the topic I’ve been blogging about here lately and post this poem a friend sent me today. At first we thought it was funny until we realized how true it was...

Tax his land,
Tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirts,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his booze,
Tax his beers,
If he cries,
Tax his tears.

Tax his bills,
Tax his gas,
Tax his notes,
Tax his cash.

Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.

If he hollers,
Tax him more,
Tax him til he's good and sore.

Tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.

Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom!"

And when he's gone,
We won't relax,
We'll still be after the inheritance TAX!!

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax,
Medicare Tax,
Property Tax,
Real Estate Tax,
Service charge taxes,
Social Security Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes,
Recreational Vehicle Tax,
School Tax,
State Income Tax,
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
Utility Tax,
Vehicle License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,
Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax.

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and there was a surplus in the treasury and absolutely no national debt, plus Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What is the American Way?

2006-08-03T07:43:00.000-06:00

In the 1950s TV series “The Adventures of Superman,” the Man of Steel was said to be fighting “a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way”. The first 26 episodes were “action-packed, sometimes gritty and often violent storylines in which Superman fought tough gangsters and crime lords,” often by repeatedly “slugging them on the jaw.” Sometimes, in our zeal to defend the American way, patriotic citizens may unintentionally come across as metaphorically doing the same thing to those who disagree with us. But is the American way about forcing our beliefs on others? Is it about bullying our opposition into submission?

No. The American way can be summed up in two sentences: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Although Americans have often failed miserably in living up to this ideal (e.g., slavery, our treatment of Native Americans, abortion on demand), the American way is about respecting the rights of others to live freely without government coercion. Americanism recognizes that rights come from God, not the government, and that no one may infringe on our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms unless we violate the rights of others.

Henry David Thoreau wrote, “That government is best which governs least.” Limited government, respect for private property, and freedom of conscience are the hallmarks of the American way.

The Real Radical

2006-08-02T16:04:00.000-06:00

The Christian is the real radical of our generation, for he stands against the monolithic, modern concept of truth as relative. But too often, instead of being the radical, standing against the shifting sands of relativism, he subsides into merely maintaing the status quo. If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross, and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong.

—Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-84), The God Who Is There (1968)

Faith-based Programs under Fire

2006-08-01T14:36:00.000-06:00

Ruling imperils faith-based programs around the country. See Christianity Today for the complete article.

The Great Omission

2006-07-27T16:54:00.000-06:00

Do we really love our neighbors if we’re not fighting injustice?

“You pastors should worry about getting people to heaven and leave this world to me.” These words, spoken by Adolf Hitler, were directed at Martin Niemöller, a German submarine commander in World War I and a minister of the gospel. The fuehrer was banking on the Church’s indifference to matters of state. He hoped that the German clergy would be so exclusively focused on winning souls for Christ that they would neglect their duty to redeem the nation’s culture and political institutions for the Kingdom of God. Tragically, he got his wish.

An early supporter of the German chancellor, Niemöller soon found himself an enemy of the state. At a time when many pastors swore an oath of allegiance and obedience to Hitler, Niemöller demanded an end to the government’s meddling in the churches and denounced its anti-Semitism. As a result, he spent seven years in a concentration camp. In his travels to America, Niemöller addressed more than two hundred audiences, sometimes concluding with a poem that has become famous: “First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

While pastors such as Niemöller and Bonhoeffer were a thorn in his side, Hitler would applaud many in America’s clergy today, including James L. Evans, pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church, whose July 8 editorial, “Why it's right for us to be on the side,” decries the notion that Christians are called to reform their society. In his message “The Christian and Government,” John MacArthur states, “There is no biblical mandate for us to spend our time, money, and energy in matters of civil government. [The Church] cannot afford to become a flag-waving, protest voice for governmental change. That's not its calling.” For MacArthur, the Christian’s responsibility to government is confined to two things: “submit to the government and pay your taxes. That's our duty. Beyond that you ought to be busy doing the things that are eternally valuable to the Kingdom.” Hitler would have reveled in such statements.

In his book “Why Government Can’t Save You, An Alternative to Political Activism,” MacArthur maintains, “A certain amount of healthy and balanced concern about current trends in government and the community is acceptable, as long as we realize that such interest is not vital to our spiritual lives, our righteous testimony or the advancement of the kingdom of Christ.” Christians who campaigned to end the slave trade, including William Wilberforce, thought otherwise. They understood that concern for the oppressed is a vital component of our Christian responsibility to love our neighbors. Today, some believers are lobbying governments to abolish child sex trafficking and other injustices. Is such activism not vital to our righteous testimony?

Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, writes in his book “Simple Prayers for a Powerful Life”: “As God’s people, we bear responsibility to cry out in prayer for the poor and the oppressed. But in order to work for social justice, we must have courage and be willing to sacrifice our resources for the sake of others . . . Let there be no doubt—concern for the oppressed is a major concern for every believer” (p. 98-99). The recent General Assembly of the Canadian Christian and Missionary Alliance encouraged delegates to a renewed commitment to restore justice to their nation (www.cmacan.org). Guest speaker Dr. Rock Dillaman challenged constituents to “look like Jesus” by “being a voice for justice.” Distancing ourselves from the “social gospel,” he said, should not mean “pulling away from compassion for the hurting and justice for the oppressed.”

Likewise, when asked about our Christian responsibility to government, Dr. Richard Lawson, director for Mission Advancement in the U.S. C&MA, replied, “What about promoting government action that attempts to defend the rights of the downtrodden? I think this is the clearest point where the Constitution and the Bible come together.”

Recently, a pastor challenged me to find biblical support for Christian political activism, adding that Jesus was so focused on His Father’s will that He didn’t have time for political agendas. Yet much of what our Savior commanded would necessitate some level of political involvement. As Christ’s ambassadors, His people are under a mandate to be “salt and light” in their societies (Matthew 5:13–16). Salt acts as a preservative. It prevents decay. As followers of Jesus, are we not to use our influence to preserve righteousness and goodness in our neighborhoods, schools, communities, and the nation at large? Should we allow our government to degenerate into lawlessness while we fill the baptistery and plant churches? Should we look the other way while unborn children are slaughtered in the womb, disabled people starved by judicial decree, and our fellow citizens are being plundered by government agencies that covet their property?

Dr. James Dobson writes, “We live in a representative form of government where we are its leaders. It means that every citizen has a responsibility to participate in the decisions that are made, and that includes people of faith using their influence for what is moral and just” (Pamphlet: Why Christians Should Vote). While voting is one way we can do this, there are a myriad of others. We’ll talk about them in an upcoming post. I’ll also include some “sound bites” (or the online equivalent) by respected Christian leaders who have challenged believers to be more proactive in their civic duty.

Now here's a good idea!

2006-07-27T11:06:00.000-06:00

Congress Considers Limiting Awards in Religious-Freedom Cases

For more information, click here.

Lights, Cameras—Activism!

2006-07-27T07:30:00.000-06:00

Must-see movie to hit theatres July 28. Here's a review.

How NOT to be salt and light

2006-07-24T13:48:00.000-06:00

Anti-abortion protesters' tactics questioned

Some fear events in Jackson have distorted group's message

By Julie Goodman, July 23, 2006

Anti-abortion activists over the last week have trotted out an aborted fetus in a vacuum-packed bag, torn up then burned a Quran, shredded a gay pride flag, and preached Jesus' message over loudspeakers in the street.

While their style of activism has gotten attention, it also has left some Christians and anti-abortion supporters in the state unsettled, worried these out-of-town protesters have given them a bad name and distorted their message.

"Anything that anyone pro-life does that does not show respect for all human life - born, unborn or dead - does not represent our movement," said Terri Herring, a longtime anti-abortion activist in the state and former head of Pro-Life Mississippi. "It's important not to judge the entire pro-life movement based on the events of this week."

Activists from the national Operation Save America have been in Jackson since July 15 to protest the state's only abortion clinic, the Jackson Women's Health Organization in the Fondren neighborhood.

The group wants to make Mississippi the first state free of abortion clinics.

Outside the clinic, the anti-abortion activists prop up large, graphic photographs of aborted fetuses, shouting out to motorists as they pass in the sweltering heat.

The protesters come from Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan and other states, and many are hardcore activists who've devoted years of their lives to the movement.

The men chanted: "This was the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to set us free from the hands of our enemies," as they held up crosses bearing the bloodied body of Jesus.

Some kneeled, grasping prayer beads, as Christian spiritual music played. They referred to their fellow protesters as "soldier" or "brother."

"God calls us to be radical to display his truth. We are not violent, we are attempting to display his love," said Susan Rule, a former nurse from Palm Bay, Fla., as she propped up a large photo of a fetus.

David Lackey of Birmingham said facing the opposition directly is what's effective.

"There's always this idea that we can appease instead of confront and that never works," he said.

Daniel Green, from outside Lafayette, La., said he disagrees with people who yell their messages out of anger.

"But, I'd rather have him than somebody that does nothing," he said, gesturing toward a man preaching into a microphone outside the State Street clinic, the spot where a woman gave a graphic account of her abortion and another man bellowed, "Should we obey God or obey man?"

Mary Woodward, of the Catholic Diocese of Jackson, said what she saw last week was hatred and bigotry, and intolerance not representative of Christianity.

"And I think what made me saddest is that they included their children in these acts," said Woodward, who also chairs the Mississippi Religious Leadership Conference.

"I'm opposed to abortion, but I didn't see what happened with the burning of the Quran and everything as having anything to do with the issue."

The activists outside the clinic have been verbally abusive and pushed the limits of the law, said McCoy Faulkner, a security consultant for the clinic.

A white-haired woman walked repeatedly on the sidewalk across the clinic's driveway, moving deliberately slow. Faulkner pointed out the woman's slow walking is a well-used tactic: It forces a motorist to stop before pulling into the clinic, giving the demonstrators time to surround the car.

Susan Hill, president of North-Carolina-based National Women's Health Organization, did not attend the events last week because of death threats she received, Faulkner said.

Earlier in the week, a church in Pearl shut its doors to Operation Save America after learning its members burned a Quran in the church's parking lot. The group also held a memorial service for an aborted fetus.

Outside the Capitol on Friday at their own, less-attended news conference, abortion-rights activists denounced the anti-abortion tactics.

They called the burning of a rainbow flag, representing the gay community, "hateful" and an attempt to evoke fear and terror.

With free-style hair and multiple piercings, the group of feminists, socialists and anarchists from Mississippi and other states who gathered to counterprotest over the last week, was markedly different from the conservative-looking anti-abortions activists.

At one point, a man in a dress used a coat hangar and a plastic bag of what looked like spaghetti sauce to re-enact a "back-alley abortion," falling down to the ground screaming.

Ginger Green, who owns a chain of dry cleaners in the area, one of which is down the street from the Fondren clinic, said she is not part of either side.

"It's too political ... Too radical, way too radical on either side," said Green, pointing to the anti-abortion activity on the street. "These people aren't even from here. You've got to be a little radical to spend your summer vacation doing this in 100-degree weather in Mississippi in July."

At the abortion rights news conference outside the Capitol, Jackson lawyer Ali ShamsidDeen, a Muslim, said, "We want everyone to understand that you will not see Muslims out burning Bibles or ... the Torah. We all believe that we believe we are brothers in this faith and that we should learn to live together and make the society one that we all can prosper in."

An anti-abortion demonstrator who tried to pass out literature during the news conference said she does not agree with destroying property.

"To me, when you walk in that destruction and you walk in that hatred of anger, you're not representing Jesus Christ," said Amy Williams, of Pearl. "Jesus was not a violent man."

Tanya Britton, head of Pro-Life Mississippi, though, in an e-mail defended the use of the graphic photos, saying, "There is no way to 'sugar coat' abortion."

Herring says she applauds the courage of those who stand up for "the unborn," but those in the anti-abortion movement have to be cognizant they can become ineffective when they are perceived as radical.

Herring recently left her role with Pro-Life Mississippi, saying she and the group were going in different directions.

Herring said she hopes to broaden the movement's base by working more with churches and getting more supporters involved by making sure they know they can help in other areas such as legislation. She said she wants to change the "hearts and minds" of people.

Herring said she hopes the state can look beyond the events of last week. "Because I think we have gained too much ground to lose momentum now," she said.

©2006 The Clarion-Ledger

Complete article available here.

Salt and Light, Spiderman Style

2006-07-21T16:47:00.000-06:00

In Spiderman, Peter Parker uses his newly discovered spider powers to compete in a wrestling match. As he leaves with his winnings, he allows a thief to escape the sports center after robbing it, figuring that’s not his problem. Later, Peter’s Uncle Ben is murdered by the same thug. Realizing he could have prevented this tragedy, Peter devotes his life to fighting injustice, driven by his uncle’s words, “With great power there must also come great responsibility” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiderman).

Today in America, an even darker tragedy is unfolding—the demise of justice and liberty. Focus on the Family’s Citizen Magazine regularly chronicles a host of attacks on religious freedom, from banning prayer in public places to prohibiting faith-based organizations from distributing petitions. A little over a year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize private property for commercial redevelopment, declaring that this constitutes a “public use” under the Constitution (Kelo v. New London). In May 2006, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported that Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote to deny First Amendment protections to whistleblowers in Garcetti v. Ceballos. And on July 17, MSNBC carried the story of an Assemblies of God member being arrested for saying, “Thank you, Jesus!” after being acquitted of false charges of child abuse (Thank you, Jesus!’ lands man in slammer)

In addition, the Internal Revenue Service routinely confiscates people’s homes and personal property without a court order or due process. During the 1997 Senate hearings to address IRS wrongdoing, it was revealed that IRS employees ignore the laws and commit perjury before federal judges; and that such conduct is often condoned by the agents’ superiors, including those at the highest levels. IRS agent Jennifer Long stated that the agency uses tactics which "extract unfairly assessed taxes from taxpayers, literally ruining families, lives, and businesses—all unnecessarily and sometimes illegally" (Online Tax Relief).

Even more ominous, a significant number of innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of federal agents, including 62-year-old Donald Scott, heir to the Scott Towel fortune, who was killed by a 32-man SWAT team that had broken into his home ostensibly to search for illegal drugs. ( Five police agencies staged bogus drug raid on rich eccentric to acquire 200-acre spread). Later, the IRS went after Scott’s widow for death taxes.

Like Peter Parker, many Americans are tempted to look the other way in the face of such injustices, reasoning, “That’s not my problem.” Or, if they dimly perceive that it is their problem, they choose to live in denial. It can’t happen here, they say. Others presume that police raids such as the one on Scott’s ranch are somehow justified. After all, people who aren’t doing anything wrong have nothing to fear, right?

Christians, too, fall into several camps in terms of their response to political injustices. On one end of the spectrum are those who make their voices heard, loudly and vehemently. They engage in protests, rallies, picketing, and sometimes heated debate in their quest to solve the nation’s evils. Then there’s the other extreme, which maintains that Christians belong on the sidelines in the cultural and political battles of our times. After all, we’re called to win souls for Jesus and make disciples of the nations. We don’t have time to get involved in politics, and taking on the government—no matter how oppressive it becomes—could distract us from our true calling and even taint our witness.

Which of these responses is biblical? What role, if any, does the Church have in the battle for America’s future as a free and just society? How is working for political justice part of being salt and light?

American Christians have been blessed with a Constitution that guarantees our freedom to preach the gospel, plant churches, worship according to our conscience, and choose our elected representatives. But as with power, with great blessing also comes great responsibility. My next few posts will be devoted to discussing what Christians can (and ought to) do to restore righteousness and justice to our nation’s political institutions. As always, I welcome your comments.

Wielding the Veto Pen for Good

2006-07-20T08:21:00.000-06:00

By Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
July 19, 2006

Today, I was privileged to witness President Bush's first use of his veto power at the White House as he struck down H.R. 810, the bill to fund more embryonic stem cell research. President Bush vetoed this bill because it crosses an important ethical line. This bill would have required U.S. taxpayers to fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos; in fact, it encourages such destruction. Regardless of what one thinks about early human life, surely we should agree that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund its destruction.

Stem cell research that is uncontroversial . . . increasingly is providing effective treatment options for patients. Ethical avenues of research, like cord blood stem cells, are being used to treat a variety of diseases including sickle cell anemia and leukemia. I thank the President for keeping his commitment to foster a culture of life.

Jay Leno on the Pledge of Allegiance

2006-07-18T12:40:00.000-06:00

"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Freedom Church: A Bastion of Liberty

2006-07-17T13:46:00.000-06:00

On July 2, 2006, Freedom Church was born in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Formerly known as Springs Harvest Fellowship, this Charismatic church adopted a new name in keeping with its mission. During the inaugural service, the congregation and its leaders made the following declaration:

We will always be God-centered, not man-centered.

We will worship in the freedom of the Spirit, with the passion God so richly deserves.

We will, without apology, function in the complete expression of the fivefold anointing of Jesus Christ.

We are warriors. We will fight for the soul of America until we see another Great Awakening.

We will fight until we see the Kingdom of God manifest in every element of society.

We will operate in Christ’s authority, healing the sick and releasing those in captivity to Satan.

We will fight until we see revival come to the youth of America, freeing them for the false ideology of humanism and the loss of purpose it creates.

We will fight until life again is sacred.

We will fight for families and individuals.

We will fight for the freedom of those oppressed.

We will preach the good news of freedom to the poor.

We will have a training center that equips; a house of prayer that births and releases; a sending center that covers, plants, and builds; and a media center that publishes and transmits truth.

We will send laborers into all the earth in order to preach the gospel of the Kingdom and disciple the nations.

We will never compromise our calling, wane in our passion or abandon the cause.

We are Freedom Church, a 21st century, Kingdom-minded congregation of New Testament believers!

For those of you who are visiting my blog from the C&MA Web site, Freedom Church is not an Alliance fellowship, but I thought you would be inspired by its mission statement. May we all have the same boldness and warrior spirit that characterizes Freedom Church!

For more information, visit www.freedomchurchcs.org.

Bart Simpson and the Bill of Rights

2006-07-13T14:28:00.000-06:00

Now this is truly sad...

A random telephone survey of 1,000 adults by the McCormick Freedom Museum revealed that only 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, more than half of Americans can name at least two members of “The Simpsons.” Twenty-two percent of respondents could name all five Simpson family members, but just 1 in 1,000 could identify all five First Amendment rights. In addition, while only 1 percent could name the right to petition for a redress of grievances, about 1 in 5 people thought the right to own a pet is protected by the First Amendment.

No wonder we’re in this mess.

To read more about the survey, visit http://www.blogger.com/www.editorandpublisher.com

Defender of the American Way: Congressman George Hansen

2006-07-10T16:45:00.000-06:00

In recent decades, it’s become almost fashionable to ridicule members of Congress for a host of abuses, most of them legitimate. In Superman the Movie, Superman tells Lois Lane, “I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way.” Lois replies, “You're going to end up fighting every elected official in this country!”

Yet even within the halls of Congress, a few lights have occasionally glimmered in the darkness. Every now and then, a statesman will arise—a man of courage and integrity willing to put the country’s needs before his own. A number of these public servants have attempted to reform our government, and many have paid dearly for their efforts. One of these martyrs for the cause of freedom is retired GOP Congressman George Hansen.

According to The Idaho Observer, Hansen was the only congressional representative willing to risk his own safety and his political career to visit the American hostages in Iran in 1979. The author of To Harass Our People, an exposé of the Internal Revenue Service, Congressman Hansen helped pass the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights. He was the first to propose a flat tax as an alternative to the graduated income tax, and he “fearlessly and repeatedly made public his findings when investigations turned up government corruption and citizen abuse” (http://www.proliberty.com/observer).

He has also been referred to on 2,500 talk-radio stations across the nation as “America’s most famous political prisoner,” according to the U.S. Citizens Human Rights Commission (http://www.constitution.org/ghansen/winds.html). Many political observers, including retired Congressman Tom Kindness (R-Ohio), believe that Hansen gained this dubious honor because of one act of bravery: his attempt to enact the Congressional Accountability Project (CAP), a plan that would make Congress instantly accountable to the American public.

“This was a project which would . . . have had a major impact on the votes of congressmen since it would have made them instantaneously responsible to the people by making their votes known immediately after being cast,” says journalist John Voss. Hansen and his associates were about to make CAP fully operational when the government, with the help of former IRS agents, manufactured bank-fraud charges against him.

After four years of imprisonment and having been ruined professionally and financially, Hansen was vindicated when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 1995. But his ordeal should never be forgotten.

“I ended up in and out of jail for a ten-year period, [with] four years solid time behind prison bars,” says Hansen. During his incarceration, he was subjected to what federal inmates refer to as “Diesel Therapy,” in which the prisoner is shuttled to various detention facilities by diesel-powered vehicles while shackled in chains so he can barely move. Spending 20 hours a day like this, Hansen, who was 63 at the time, was transported from one prison to another so that no one—not even his family or attorney—knew of his whereabouts. Hansen says the trucks he traveled in reeked of urine and feces because the prisoners were kept bound without any access to sanitation facilities. “The best thing you could do,” he says, “is the biblical act of fasting. If you don’t eat and don’t drink, you don’t have to go to the bathroom.”

While in prison, Hansen was assigned to do chemical testing with hazardous substances without any protection. “That caused my bones and teeth to go soft,” he says. “I ended up with 24 teeth breaking off at the gum line. For three years I was not allowed to see a dentist. So far, it has cost me about $14,000 to try to repair my mouth. My dentist says I’m a dental cripple for life.”

When offered an opportunity for parole, Hansen asked to be returned to prison because the terms of his parole would have forced him to reveal the names of people he had been representing who were being harassed by the government. “This would result in the betrayal of those people,” he says.

Initially, the parole board agreed to waive the financial reporting requirements that would have necessitated this information, but Hansen soon found himself violating parole for something completely unexpected—attending church. He happened to sit next to a federal marshal who was also a member of the congregation, and “that became my parole violation,” Hansen says. He was arrested in the dead of night and taken to an abandoned prison, where he was chained to a wall from Good Friday through Easter Sunday. Hansen believes this was done to “send him a message not to mess with their system.”

Even after the Supreme Court exonerated Hansen, it took eight months for him to be released. When his release was imminent, the Justice Department claimed there were “technicalities” that had to be looked at, and the former legislator remained in diesel therapy from May through Christmas.

When asked if he had any future plans to regain his congressional seat, Hansen replied, “My wife says if I ever run for anything again, it had better be the border.” Despite his ordeal, the veteran legislator is calling on all Americans, including members of Congress, to join him in the fight to restore accountability to the U.S. government.

Sources
The Winds, http://www.constitution.org/ghansen/winds.html

“Truth Surfaces in Hansen Ordeal,” by Edward Snook and Don Harkins, The Idaho Observer, http://www.proliberty.com/observer

It’s a bird! It’s a plane!

2006-07-07T13:16:00.001-06:00

With the recent release of Superman Returns, it seems fitting to include a tribute to the Man of Steel in a blog inspired by his motto. Ever since he leaped from the pages of Action Comics in 1938, Superman has been an American icon. His powers (which include the ability to fly into outer space and melt steel beams with his eyes) border on the supernatural. But perhaps what really won our hearts is his code of honor.

He learned his moral code from his adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. Discovering their extraterrestrial son’s powers, they could easily exploit them for their own gain—possibly to control the world. Instead, they tell Clark to use his strength to serve humanity, to fight evil and rescue those in trouble. When he grows to manhood, Clark does just that. Assuming a secret identity as a mild-mannered reporter, he repudiates the advantages that come with power to become Superman, “champion of the oppressed, the physical marvel who had sworn to devote his existence to helping those in need” (Action Comics #1, 1938).

Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Superman is the embodiment of the timeless values which made America great: respect for private property; honesty; a reverence for human life (his code includes a “no-kill” policy); equal treatment under the law; and an unwavering commitment to justice and fair play, even for accused murderers. In many ways he was also a product of the time in which he debuted. During the Great Depression, Americans were distrustful of government, and this comes across in the early villains Superman fights—corrupt politicians, slick lobbyists, and munitions magnates who are plotting to entangle the United States in overseas war; in other words, “those who sought to thwart the American way” (“Identity Crisis: the Many Faces of the Man of Steel”).

As America’s cultural and moral landscape decayed, Superman lost much of his wholesome image. In Superman II, for instance, he gives up his powers to sleep with Lois Lane. His abdication of responsibility nearly results in the world becoming enslaved by three power-mad dictators from Krypton. And in Superman Returns, we learn that the Man of Steel left earth “without any thought to what the consequences of his absence might be—for example, the villain Lex Luthor is out of prison now because Superman failed to appear and testify against him at his parole hearing” (Christianity Today).

But there is room for hope. In the WB series “Smallville,” Superman retains many of the values traditionally associated with the American way. In one episode, the teenaged Clark befriends a homeless teen with super speed who uses his ability to get whatever he wants. Clark counsels the youth against stealing, even from billionaire Lex Luther (who has not yet become Superman’s arch nemesis and ironically is Clark’s best friend). When the young man tells Clark that Luther’s insurance company will reimburse him for the loss, Clark insists it’s the principle that matters, not how wealthy his intended victim is. “There are laws,” he says. This commitment to upholding the rule of law—for rich and poor alike—was a hallmark of the early Superman comic books.

Perhaps the most endearing characteristic of “Smallville’s” incarnation of Superman is the redemptive effect Clark’s friendship has on Lex Luther in early episodes. Throughout the series, Luther continually affirms how much he looks to Clark as a model of integrity. And even though Luther often locks horns with Jonathan Kent, the young billionaire is always quick to acknowledge how fortunate Clark is to have parents who raised him with strong moral principles. In a television culture that frequently lampoons the traditional family, specifically fathers, Clark’s wholesome relationship with his dad is especially refreshing.

For 68 years, Superman has been the ultimate American hero. His popularity has endured through a Great Depression, two world wars, declining comic book sales, and an increasingly jaded public. Perhaps the reason Superman appeals to so many people is that we have an innate desire to see wrongs righted, to see the weak defended, to see justice prevail. In short, we need a savior to come and make things right in the world, to rescue us from the darkness.

Two thousand years ago, another extraterrestrial came to earth. Like Superman, he had powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. He could control the weather, walk on water, and even raise the dead. He, too, renounced the privileges that accompany power to serve mankind.

Like Clark Kent, he was raised in an inconsequential, backwater town, and few would have imagined he was destined for greatness.

He was sent to this planet with a mission not unlike the son of Jor-El’s: to save us from evil. But he was far more than a superhero. He was—and is—the eternally existing Son of the Living God.

For those of you who are crying out for a hero, he is your answer. Indeed he is the only answer—the ultimate champion in the battle between good and evil.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross (Colossians 1:15-20).

Bibliography/links

http://www.sequart.com/
http://theages.superman.ws/Encyclopedia/superman.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman
Christianity Today
christianbook

PluggedIn

A New Declaration

2006-07-06T12:27:00.000-06:00

By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

July 3, 2006

On the fourth day of July, in 1776, a small group of men, representing 13 colonies in the far-off Americas, boldly told the most powerful nation on earth that they were free.

They declared, in terms that still are radical today, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights that government neither grants nor can take away.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers sought to demonstrate to the world that they were rejecting a tyrannical king. They listed the “injuries and usurpations” that contain the philosophical basis for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

One point of consternation to our founding fathers was that the king had been “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” But 230 years later, taxation with representation has not worked out much better.

Indeed, one has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to the current state of affairs. After all, they were outraged by mere import tariffs of a few pennies on the dollar. Today, the average American pays roughly 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect taxes.

In fact, most Texans will not start working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans, work from January until early July just to pay their federal income taxes, state and local taxes, and the enormous costs of regulation. Only about half the year is spent working to pay for food, clothing, shelter, or education.

It is easy to simply blame faceless bureaucrats and politicians for our current state of affairs, and they do bear much of the blame. But blame also rests with those who expect Washington DC to solve every problem under the sun. If the public demanded that Congress abide by the Constitution and pass only constitutional spending bills, politicians would have no choice but to respond.

Everybody seems to agree that government waste is rampant and spending should but cut—but not when it comes to their communities or pet projects. So members of Congress have every incentive to support spending bills and adopt a go-along, get-along attitude. This leads to the famous compromises, but the bill eventually comes due on April 15th.

Our basic problem is that we have lost sight of the simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best.

When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans truly will be free. That should be our new declaration.

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is a leading advocate for limited constitutional government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. A true statesman, he is also the nation's premier spokesman for low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst070306.htm

The 4th of July

2006-06-29T17:23:00.000-06:00

By David Barton

This year marks 230 years since our Founding Fathers gave us our National Birth Certificate. We continue to be the longest on-going Constitutional Republic in the history of the world. Blessings such as these are not by chance or accidental. They are blessings of God.

On July 2, 1776, Congress voted to approve a complete separation from Great Britain. Two days afterwards – July 4th – the early draft of the Declaration of Independence was signed, albeit by only two individuals at that time: John Hancock, President of Congress, and Charles Thompson, Secretary of Congress. Four days later, on July 8, members of Congress took that document and read it aloud from the steps of Independence Hall, proclaiming it to the city of Philadelphia, after which the Liberty Bell was rung. The inscription around the top of that bell, Leviticus 25:10, was most appropriate for the occasion: “Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.”

To see the turmoil in other nations, their struggles and multiple revolutions, and yet to see the stability and blessings that we have here in America, we may ask how has this been achieved? What was the basis of American Independence? John Adams said “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.”

Perhaps the clearest identification of the spirit of the American Revolution was given by John Adams in a letter to Abigail the day after Congress approved the Declaration. He wrote her two letters on that day; the first was short and concise, jubilant that the Declaration had been approved. The second was much longer and more pensive, giving serious consideration to what had been done that day. Adams cautiously noted: “This day will be the most memorable epic in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.”

It is amazing that on the very day they approved the Declaration, Adams was already foreseeing that their actions would be celebrated by future generations. Adams contemplated whether it would be proper to hold such celebrations, but then concluded that the day should be commemorated – but in a particular manner and with a specific spirit. As he told Abigail: “It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

John Adams believed that the Fourth of July should become a religious holiday – a day when we remembered God's hand in deliverance and a day of religious activities when we committed ourselves to Him in “solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” Such was the spirit of the American Revolution as seen through the eyes of those who led it, evidenced even further in the words of John Quincy Adams, one who was deeply involved in the activities of the Revolution.

In 1837, when he was 69 years old, he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts. He began that address with a question: “Why is it, friends and fellow citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it that entering on the 62nd year of our national existence you have honored [me] with an invitation to address you. . . ?”

The answer was easy: they had asked him to address them because he was old enough to remember what went on; they wanted an eye-witness to tell them of it! He next asked them: “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?”

An interesting question: why is it that in America the Fourth of July and Christmas were our two top holidays? Note his answer: “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”

According to John Quincy Adams, Christmas and the Fourth of July were intrinsically connected. On the Fourth of July, the Founders simply took the precepts of Christ which came into the world through His birth (Christmas) and incorporated those principles into civil government.

Have you ever considered what it meant for those 56 men – an eclectic group of ministers, business men, teachers, university professors, sailors, captains, farmers – to sign the Declaration of Independence? This was a contract that began with the reasons for the separation from Great Britain and closed in the final paragraph stating “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Dr. Benjamin Rush, the father of American Medicine and a signer, recorded that day in his diary. In 1781, he wrote to John Adams “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe to what was believed by many at that time to be our death warrants? The silence and gloom of the morning was interrupted, I well recollect, only for a moment by Colonel Harrison of Virginia (a big guy) who said to Mr. Gerry (small in stature) at the table: 'I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing... From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead.' This speech procured a transient smile, but it was soon succeeded by the solemnity with which the whole business was conducted.”

These men took this pledge seriously. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania is an example of the highest level of integrity. He was chosen as the financier of the American Revolution. What an honor, except that there was no bank willing to give any loans to help fund the revolution. It was three years and the Battle of Saratoga before America got any kind of funding at all. After winning that battle, foreign nations like France, Holland, and others decided maybe we weren't such a bad risk and began loaning us money. So where did we get money for the first three years? Congress, at that time, could not have obtained a loan of one thousand dollars, yet Robert Morris effected loans upon his own credit, of tens of thousands. In 1781, George Washington conceived the expedition against Cornwallis, at Yorktown. He asked Judge Peters of Pennsylvania, “What can you do for me?” “With money, everything, without it, nothing,” he replied, at the same time turning with anxious look toward Mr. Morris. “Let me know the sum you desire,” said Mr. Morris; and before noon Washington's plan and estimates were complete. Robert Morris promised him the amount, and he raised it upon his own responsibility. It has been justly remarked, that: “If it were not demonstrable by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign of 1781, which resulted in the capture of Cornwallis, and virtually closed the Revolutionary War, was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.” America couldn't repay him because there was no money and yet Robert Morris never complained because he had given his word.

You see the same thing in the life of John Hart. He was a strong Christian gentleman and Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Jersey. He promised to help provide them with guidance and leadership. There were three things that were important in his life; his Savior, his family and his farm. Because of his signature on the Declaration, the British were seeking him (and the rest of the signers) to execute as traitors. John Hart fled his home after which his farm was ravaged, his timber destroyed, his cattle and stock butchered for the use of the British army. He did not dare to remain two nights in the same location. After Washington's success at the battle of Trenton, he finally returned home to find that his wife had died and his children scattered. He lost almost everything that was important to him but kept his word.

John Hancock, a very wealthy individual lived in a mansion reflecting his princely fortune – one of the largest in the Province of Massachusetts. During the time the American army besieged Boston to rid it of the British, the American officers proposed the entire destruction of the city. “By the execution of such a plan, the whole fortune of Mr. Hancock would have been sacrificed. Yet he readily acceded to the measure, declaring his willingness to surrender his all, whenever the liberties of his country should require it.” A man of his word, he demonstrated his integrity.

The 16 Congressional proclamations for prayer and fasting throughout the Revolution were not bland (i.e., the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, the quoting of Romans 14:17, etc.) ; however, this is not unusual considering the prominent role that many ministers played in the Revolution.

One such example is John Peter Muhlenburg. In a sermon delivered to his Virginia congregation on January 21, 1776, he preached verse by verse from Ecclesiastes 3 – the passage which speaks of a season and a time to every purpose under heaven. Arriving at verse 8, which declares that there is a time of war and a time of peace, Muhlenburg noted that this surely was not the time of peace; this was the time of war. Concluding with a prayer, and while standing in full view of the congregation, he removed his clerical robes to reveal that beneath them he was wearing the uniform of an officer in the Continental army! He marched to the back of the church; ordered the drum to beat for recruits and over three hundred men joined him, becoming the Eighth Virginia Brigade. John Peter Muhlenburg finished the Revolution as a Major-General, having been at Valley Forge and having participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Stonypoint, and Yorktown.

Another minister-leader in the Revolution was the Reverend James Caldwell. His actions during one battle inspired a painting showing him standing with a stack of hymn books in his arms while engaged in the midst of a fierce battle against the British outside a battered Presbyterian church. During the battle, the Americans had developed a serious problem: they had run out of wadding for their guns, which was just as serious as having no ammunition. Reverend Caldwell recognized the perfect solution; he ran inside the church and returned with a stack of Watts Hymnals – one of the strongest doctrinal hymnals of the Christian faith (Isaac Watts authored “O God Our Help In Ages Past,” “Joy to the World,” “Jesus Shall Reign,” and several other classic hymns). Distributing the Watts Hymnals among the soldiers served two purposes: first, its pages would provide the needed wadding; second, the use of the hymnal carried a symbolic message. Reverend Caldwell took that hymn book – the source of great doctrine and spiritual truth – raised it up in the air and shouted to the Americans, “Give 'em Watts, boys!”

The spiritual emphasis manifested so often by the Americans during the Revolution caused one Crown-appointed British governor to write to Great Britain complaining that: “If you ask an American who is his master, he'll tell you he has none. And he has no governor but Jesus Christ.”

Letters like this, and sermons like those preached by the Reverend Peter Powers titled “Jesus Christ the King,” gave rise to a sentiment that has been described as a motto of the American Revolution. Most Americans are unaware that the Revolution might have had mottoes, but many wars do (e.g., in the Texas' war for independence, it was “Remember the Alamo”; in the Union side in the Civil War, it was “In God We Trust”; in World War I, it was “Remember the Lusitania”; in World War II, it was “Remember Pearl Harbor”; etc.). A motto of the American Revolution directed against the tyrant King George III and the theologically discredited doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings (which asserted that when the king spoke, it was the voice of God speaking directly to the people) was simple and direct: “No King but King Jesus!” Another motto (first suggested by Benjamin Franklin and often repeated during the Revolution) was similar in tone: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

Preserving American liberty depends first upon our understanding the foundations on which this great country was built and then preserving the principles on which it was founded. Let's not let the purpose for which we were established be forgotten. The Founding Fathers have passed us a torch; let's not let it go out.

Copyright © 2003 WallBuilders
www.wallbuilders.com

Guardian of the Constitution: Officer Jack McLamb

2006-06-28T16:14:00.000-06:00

His blade defends the helpless.
His might upholds the weak.
His word speaks only truth.

Although this poem describes a Knight of the Old Code in the movie Dragon Heart, it also captures the heroism of a modern-day patriot I once had the privilege of meeting named Jack McLamb.

Officer McLamb is the most highly decorated police officer in the history of the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. A U.S. Navy and Vietnam War veteran, McLamb was an instructor for the Arizona Regional Police Academy as well as a hostage negotiator for the FBI. He sustained a line-of-duty injury while apprehending a convicted drug smuggler, leading to medical retirement in 1986. Currently, he is president of The American Citizens & Lawmen Association.

Because of his commitment to obey his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, McLamb also has the distinction of being the most fired officer in the history of the Phoenix PD. He ran afoul of his superiors when he began speaking out against immoral and unlawful conduct by government officials, specifically the giving of unconstitutional orders for police officers to follow. As a result, he was fired twice, rehired twice on appeal to the Civil Service Board, and then reprimanded by that board twice (http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/government/weapons11-97.html)

Much like the superheroes I grew up with, Jack McLamb used his authority as a police officer to protect the weak and defenseless, fighting crime in all its forms—whether on the streets of Phoenix or in the halls of government. In an interview with The WINDS, McLamb laments that as an instructor at the Phoenix Police Academy, he was told to train young officers not to be servants and protectors of the people but to protect and serve the system. “It’s looked at as if there is no higher authority in our society than government, which is god,” McLamb says. “As a result, if your god is your government, then you are trained as a lawman to do everything to protect the system, even from the people if you have to. This is called ‘patriotism.’”

Officer McLamb put his entire career on the line to challenge this mindset. Often he felt completely alone. “It was lonely indeed to be the first to speak out and ask for fellow officers to stand up and say NO to the Officer’s Code of Silence, to unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional orders or activities on the part of our brethren and/or government,” McLamb says (Aid and Abet newsletter, http://www.uhuh.com/guns/aid-abet/aa-v2-10.htm).

Yet during those years of severe persecution from his department and from state and federal agencies, McLamb, a devout Christian, says that God sustained him by sending people alongside him to support him, including private citizens and fellow police officers, one of whom “jumped right into the ‘fire’ with me. These few great Americans helped me take to other officers and soldiers a strange and seemingly new (but actually very old) idea, one that had long since been forgotten by many: namely, that police officers and soldiers should know, understand and live strictly by their sworn oath . . . not to the system, but to every one of the sovereign American people: to protect and defend the People and the Constitution, even, if necessary, from an out-of-bounds governmental system.”

Officer McLamb, we salute you.

To read more about Officer Jack McLamb, visit http://www.patriotamerica.com/JackMcLamb/index.htm

The Villain

2006-06-26T16:51:00.000-06:00

Ever since second grade when I was the favorite target of the schoolyard bully, I have been drawn to superheroes—the good guys who fight for truth, justice, and the American way. My torment ended (at least until the next round of beatings) as soon as I came home and tuned into reruns of “Batman,” followed by the Spiderman animated series and capped off by Superman’s exploits in Metropolis. These shows helped me forget about my physical and emotional scars as I entered a world where the good guys always prevail and the villains suffer ignominious defeat. It was a parallel universe where justice wins the day—and where my childhood nemeses would fear to tread.

As I grew older, I learned that there are adversaries more fearsome than those who had roughed me up during recess. I also discovered that my deadliest foes are the very people charged with protecting me. They are the minions of a villain far more dastardly than any of those encountered in the pages of DC Comics. He has been known to defraud businesses of millions, steal people’s homes and life savings, separate families, shut down places of worship, put innocent people behind bars, and drive his victims to suicide. He has destroyed countless lives with the stroke of a pen, committed genocide on a massive scale, and spawned war and poverty across the globe. He has no respect for the rule of law and shows no mercy to his opponents.

This super-villain has made his lair in lavish palaces, corporate headquarters, the offices of petty bureaucrats, and even police stations. Sometimes he is spotted near city highways, lying in wait for innocent tourists on their way to a vacation destination. In recent years, he has been sighted frequently at airport security terminals, where he has waylaid many a traveler—including the elderly and handicapped. Using his powers of persuasion and his cloak of secrecy, this fiend has convinced many unsuspecting victims that he is there to help them. Some say he has the ability to control minds. One day, it is feared, he will control the entire world.
His name is Big Government.

I first learned of this menace when my dad told me about his experience growing up in a faraway land where Big Government had murdered more than 6 million people. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night, abducted by Big Government’s henchmen, known in that realm as the Nazis. In other parts of the world, his cohorts have gone by different names. Some have called themselves Communists and Fascists, but when these titles came under ill repute, they adopted more respectable ones to hide their sinister intentions.

Living in a country that was said to be free, I never dreamed that the villain would dare to darken my door. Surely the horror stories my father told me could never happen in the Land of the Free. Gradually, however, I made a sickening discovery: Big Government had come to our shores!

It happened so gradually that hardly anyone noticed. It started when the people began to forget their history and the sacrifices made by the heroes of old to drive Big Government off their land. The people had enjoyed the fruits of liberty for so long that they grew careless and complacent. They stopped reading and studying and amused themselves with vain pursuits, spending much of their time at the games (which some say were devised by the villain to distract his potential victims).

Big Government soon found a way to convince the masses to pay him money to carry out his nefarious schemes. It was conceived by one of his henchmen known as Karl Marx, who called it the graduated income tax. Even in the Land of the Free, most people work nearly half their lives to satiate Big Government’s appetite for their wealth. Many mothers, preferring to stay home with their children, have been pressed into labor to pay their husband’s share of tribute to the villain.

In time he took over the nation’s schools, where children are taught to revere him and where the heroes of old are vilified. Most shocking of all, Big Government persuaded his victims to give up their weapons—their last means of defense—in the guise of fighting crime. He called this ruse gun control, and he found it especially successful during the days of the Nazis, the Soviets, the Khmer Rouge and other Big-Government minions, who used it to wipe out 57 million men, women and children. (Jay Simkin, et al., Lethal Laws, JPFO: 1994, www.jpfo.org)

Is all hope lost? Is there no one left who will fight for truth, justice, and the American way against the machinations of Big Government? Tune in to future episodes to meet the unsung heroes who have dared to defy him. Though they don’t have superpowers, they have much in common with the superheroes that captivated me during my youth. Some, like Spiderman, have been viewed with antagonism by authority figures and the media even as they try to fight evil. Many (like Superman) have given up any semblance of a normal life in their unwavering pursuit of justice. It is my hope that their stories of courage, commitment, perseverance, and sacrifice will inspire fellow patriots whose hearts have been broken by the oppression creeping across what once was known as the Land of the Free.

For those of you who have your own stories of heroism in the face of Big Government, I welcome you to share them. Some of you may have been deeply wounded in your battles, and perhaps this blog can offer you a safe haven to unload the burdens you have carried in your fight for freedom and justice.

In addition to honoring the heroes who are trying to restore justice to America’s political institutions, this blog will expose the insidious schemes Big Government has been using to subvert the American Way. Occasionally we will look at patriots of yesteryear who stood against the villain and won—or died trying.

May the adventure begin…