Friday, November 28, 2008

Separation of church and state- Is it as it should have been?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It is believed now that these words from the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment built a “wall of separation” between church and state and very few have ever questioned it.
Was the first amendment of the Constitution intended to provide a “wall of separation”? Is it really important, does it really matter and why?

The famous phrase was from the private letter written on New Year’s Day, 1802, by President Thomas Jefferson. Never had a private letter from a president ever been used to establish law and was taken completely out of context. If private letters are important, it should have been just as important to print the entire letter rather than just a part of it.

Thomas Jefferson was not part of the constitutional convention and rightly disqualified himself due to the slow communication from him to the American convention knowing it would take weeks. Although he did want the bill of rights, he never gave specific directions concerning it.
Joseph Storey, who sat on the Supreme court from 1811-1845 said:

“Probably at the time of the adoption of the first amendment , the general if not the universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions and make it a matter of state policy to hold all and utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation…”

John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813 wrote:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I them believed, and now believe, that these general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God”

On November 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson to ask if their religious exercise was a government-granted or a God-granted right concerned that government would try to regulate their religious expression.
The letter reads:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, gives me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in the proportion as they are persuaded my fidelity of those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith and worship, than the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” thus building a wall of separation between the church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscious, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I, assurances of my high respect and esteem.” reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common father and creator of man and tender you for yourselves and your religious association.

The First amendment was never intended to separate the church from the state other than to keep the government from involving itself in the affairs of the church. To truly understand if this was actually true, one needs to know more about our founding fathers and how they felt. It was important to them that when the Constitution with the Bill of rights was read that it was to be understood as it was when they wrote it.

According to “The writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Jefferson understood their concern and assured them the free exercise of religion was an unalienable right which would not be meddled with by the government. Jefferson pointed out that there was a “wall of separation of church and state” to ensure that the government would not interfere with the activities of the church.

Further evidence of this is a letter from Jefferson to Benjamin Rush when he wrote that he was against “the establishment of a particular form of Christianity”

Founding documents, quotes and state records including the records from June through September 1789 make it clear they wanted to follow God’s principles but not allow one (Christian) denomination to be superior to others.

In 1799, the U.S. Supreme court declared:

“By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing”

George Washington in 1799 said:

“If anyone attempted to separate religion and morality from politics, he couldn’t be called an American patriot”

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court manipulated Jefferson’s metaphor:

“In the words of Jefferson,” the justices declared, the First Amendment “erect[ed] ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ … [that] must be kept high and impregnable.
We could not approve the slightest breach.”

This landmark ruling in Everson v. Board of Education had enormous repercussions for the role of religion in public life. The Court, it would seem, sought to legitimize its decision in this case by appealing to a giant figure in American history. The U.S. Supreme court’s manipulation may be the Court’s most celebrated use of history in contemporary jurisprudence. It is, in fact, a misuse of history because Jefferson’s “wall” misrepresents constitutional principles in several important ways.

First, Jefferson’s metaphor emphasizes separation between church and state—unlike the First Amendment, which speaks in terms of the non-establishment and free exercise of religion. Jefferson’s Baptist correspondents, who agitated for disestablishment (the elimination of an official “state church”) but not for separation, they were apparently disturbed by the figurative phrase. They, like many Americans, feared that the erection of a wall would separate religious influences from public life and policy. Few evangelical dissenters challenged the widespread assumption of the age that a self-governing people must be a moral people and that morals can be nurtured only by the Christian religion. They believed religion was an indispensable support for civic virtue and political prosperity, and its separation from public life necessarily imperiled social order and stability.

Second, a wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil government and religion—unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on civil government only. Replacing the First Amendment with a wall unavoidably restrains religion, especially in its ability to influence public life, thereby exceeding the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

Third, having assumed the separation of church and state, the civil state (often acting through the judiciary) has then presumed to define what “religion” is and what are the appropriate realms, duties, and functions of the “church” in a civil society. This has given the civil state practical, de facto priority over the church, subjecting the latter to the jurisdiction of the former.
Originally a restriction on the civil government’s powers, the First Amendment has been reinterpreted to grant power to the government to define and, ultimately, restrict the place of religion in society. Herein lies the danger of this misinterpretation. Today people frequently invoke the “wall” to separate religion from public life, thereby promoting a religion that is essentially private and a civil state that is strictly secular.

The “high and impregnable” wall constructed by the modern Court inhibits religion’s ability to inform the public ethic, deprives religious citizens of the civil liberty to participate in politics armed with ideas informed by their spiritual values, and infringes the right of religious communities and institutions to extend their prophetic ministries into the public square. Jefferson’s figurative barrier has been used to silence the religious voice in the marketplace of ideas and to segregate faith communities behind a restrictive wall.

Those who criticize modern constructions of the wall are not necessarily supporting a religious establishment. Rather, these critics contend that the First Amendment requires that religion and religious perspectives must be allowed to compete in the public sphere, without government inhibition, on the same terms as their secular counterparts. By its very nature, however, a high wall does not permit this.

The use of Jefferson’s metaphoric wall to exclude religion from public life is at war with our cultural traditions insofar as it shows a callous indifference toward religion. It also offends basic notions of freedom of religious exercise, expression, and association in a pluralistic society. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s “high and impregnable” wall has redefined First Amendment principles, transforming a bulwark of religious liberty into an instrument of intolerance and censorship.

Ask yourself if there are any precedent court decision that lead to Everson V Board of Education which gave us Hugo Black's quoting of Jefferson "separation between the church and state?" There aren’t any previous court decisions so Black must have created it out of thin air.
If this is true then one must begin to think:

Why is there no separation between the press and the state....or the separation of speech and the state.....or the separation between assembly and state....why have they singled out only one of the freedoms listed in the 1st amendment when the entire first amendment is one continuous statement with a period appearing only at the end?

If the first amendment was a compound statement, Commas signify "and"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ( and) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (and) or abridging the freedom of speech, (and) or of the press; (and) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The idea that religion was the only one of the interconnected inalienable first amendment rights that government can limit is ridiculous. Religion, speech, press, and assembly are all connected together in the 1st amendment. Congress cannot restrict them...and neither can the courts.

If each freedom was to stand equal and separate then the 1st amendment would read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to petition the government for a redress.

America is in a crisis of biblical proportions on so many levels it would be difficult to say, for many, which was most important.

In my opinion it is our removal of God from every facet of society that has attributed to the decline of our moral, political, social, and economic foundations. The removal, I believe, is from the generations of ignorance, laziness and lack of continual education, from a young age, on the Word of God and the history of this country and the rest of the world.

The myth of the separation of church and state is just one of the many examples of the lies we have been fed by our government trying to change who we are and where we came from.

Quotes and writings from our founding fathers, Supreme Court justices and many others all through history will confirm very quickly the importance of God in our lives both morally and politically. One has only to read briefly to realize this and those who believe otherwise never have taken the time.

Hopefully this entry will encourage you to look into the other lies in the textbooks of Science, History and English and see that they are all being re-written every few years to change the history of who we are and where we came from.

“A county that does not know where it came from does not know where it is going”
Thomas Payne and others

Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation


Do you think Washington was aware of the separation of church and state?

Thanksgiving Proclamation
City of New York, October 3, 1789

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

George Washington

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

LDS church crossfire

The LDS church has come under tremendous fire with their bold stand on Proposition 8 and I commend them.

I am not LDS but have many friends that are. They are active in their communities and believe in traditional family values and true conservatism and believe these are some of the reasons why some of our towns are still conservative. Although many of their beliefs are different than mine, they do not believe in the violation of our God given rights, the right to Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness .

To correct the views of one, Jonathan Kirk, who says a fearful man is not a moral man, I would disagree and question his ideology. It is evident that he is not a religious man because the bible is the author of morality and that to fear the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Since the beginning of history there has been violence stemming from differences in religion, one trying to become the more dominant than the other neither accomplishing the peace and harmony that everyone dreams of that has never happened and from the looks of things, never will.

Today we have a battle that is far different than religions, it is a complete clash of cultures. It is a battle of morals, values and the truth which are not relative.

It write today to commend the LDS church for standing against immorality,for conservatism, family values and the ideal of individual liberty and to the exercise their right to "freedom of speech" and the "freedom of religion."

Regardless of which side on takes on the issues, one thing should be made perfectly clear, If we are, in fact, still a "Constitutional republic" and we are still a nation of laws then it should be understood that the passing of Prop 8 was an ammendment that went through the proper judicial and political process. It was the voice of the people through that process that created an ammendment. The fact that the ammendment has passed it should no longer become an argument nor be overturned regardless of any amount of civil disobedience because it would then become unconstitutional , a violation of the people and should be considered "judicial tyranny." Furthermore, the very idea that one would question the constitutionality of marriage as anything more than a union between a man and a woman is preposterous and shows the true ignorance of the peole who claim it. Marriage is an institution by God and outlined in Genesis.If there are those who do not believe in God and His word, perhaps those people should not believe in His institutions as well.

The Constitution, Today, has been used to crucify the very people who have created it, Christians. Our founding fathers, 53 of 55 were different denominations of Christians and all had one thing in common, the Bible.They knew the fragility of "The republic" and the importance of religion, government, education and morality that was woven into the fabric of this nation and never meant to be separated.

It is my opinion that the church is responsible for our nations immoral slide. Since the beginning of this country, the church held every postion in government, as a matter of fact you could not take a position unless you professed your faith in God. It was the the late 1960's when the church backed away from the political realm and gave up key positions including the radio and television and there was a movement that was ready to take over. Today, as we lose our freedoms and are being persecuted for praying and preaching His words, the church continues to remain silent.We have an infectious disease among us that is strangling the life and breath from this country. The church this great nation was founded on refuses to speak out in fear of losing it's congergation and it's revenues.

The church today has modified the word of God, has marginalized it to become more tolerant of our new wave of cultural progression, to try to grow the church and increase revenues and thus serving two or more masters.The interesting part of their ability to marginalize is that the opposition still continues to persecute the church attendees no matter how liberal the church becomes.

Today, we now have true "hate groups" who actually claim it is unconstitutional to accept one man and one woman in marriage but find that they were well within their rights to physically abuse those that pray for them because they shouldn't have been there.To those who will do whatever it takes to get their way even if it creates civil disturbances, also unlawful and violates the will of the people, their families, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and trampling the rights of anyone who believes differenly than they do.It is my opinion that this would fit the true mold for a "hate group."

These same groups that feel it is their right to disrupt churches during service because of their freedom of expression even though it is a violation of our freedom to worshiop in addition to the laws that prohibit the disruption of a church service.

Some groups commit vile sexual acts in public streets, encouraging children to attend, while the law enforcement and the city governments support , promote and turn their heads even though there are laws against sodomy as well as indescent exposure, among others in every state in the union.

The California supreme court overturns the will of the people on the first bill that was introduced where the people voted against prop 8 even though that is a violation of the constitution and because of the continual disturbances may do it again?

Why is it that there is so much attention being given to a group who is either violent or makes violent threats or both, violates our constitution and our laws, violates our individual personal liberty and is only comprised of about 1% of the population?

I only wish the church would wake up, to follow the example of the LDS church, to stand with them in unity on the issues that we agree on.

I find it sad that the battle in this nation founded by Christians is now being fought by the mormons while the Christians prefer to be comfortably seated in their stained glass fortresses dressed in their battle gear waiting on the "rapture" bus casting their pearls before swine.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Obamamania continues!!!

It appears that writers in many magazines and newspapers both locally and nationally still continue to write about the outcome of the election touting the victory over conservatism and the Bush administration for it's failed policies, overspending and the war, and understandibly so in many instances.

I was so disgusted with this election, I wasn't sure I could handle much more, I am glad it's over.The lies, the coverups the denial, the blatent disrespect for one another and the medias complete unwillingness to remain"media" unbiased was proof enough to me that something was seriously wrong.

For the past year or so I had spoken to as many people, traveling to various states and here locally, as I could about their positon on the issues on what candidate they would choose for president and why, I truly wanted to know what issues were important to the American people.

No matter which Obama voter I spoke with they felt that the most important issue was the economy and the domestic programs. When I asked them about how they felt the election was going they all felt that the election was fair and all the questions they had were answered and no one was left without a doubt on where he stood on the issues.

(Please click the following link to observe the knowlege that was obtained by Obamas supporters)

I still have many questions that have not been answered or feel that their are many that were answered inadequately. There are too many questions left unanswered that would allow me to trust in him.

From his associations , to the lack of qualifications, to the known fraud in multiple states by ACORN, to the multiple lawsuits regarding his citizenship, his tax plans, his unwillingness to uphold the Constitution, his patriotism and his dictatorship ability to attemt to silence people who speak out against the liberals and the president elect himself.

Socialism?Yes we have been moving toward socialism for many years but it hasn't been until now where Socialism has been officially branded on this country because of it's clear definition of "spreading the wealth, " which most accuratly describes "Socialism,"The first significant step to becoming a "welfare state." It cannot be denied unless we use our "new age thinking" and bring "relativism " into play. One thing that needs to be done now, for everything, is that the meanings of the words must be made clear before they are used, to make it clear to all parties what we are talking about, thus making the dictionary obselete? No one ever spelled out what Socialism is. I know, but I would say that not many people did, understanding this may well have changed the outcome of the election.

According to "The Law" by frederic Bastiet, 1850, there are two kinds of people:
1. People who work for what they have.
2. People who take from those who work for what they have.

Basically said, this means that in order to go universal in any government program, the people who work will now have to take care of those who do not, or choose not to, limiting the workers potential to enjoy individual prosperity.We speak of "fairness."What is fair?

If I work hard and my neighbor doesn't is he entitled to my belongings? Should he be? If so, how much should be his? If I have a boat, should he have one? Should it be bigger than mine, the same size?If I have two homes, should he have two homes? How big should they be? Wait...If I have two kids, should he have two kids? What if he cant? If I have a disease should he have it too? if "fair is fair" how far will that go?

Life has never been "fair." Even in biblical times, the bible says "the rich shall rule over the poor." We have adults and children dying before they reach retirement or maturity, we have babies that do not get the chance to see life, we have tragic accidents;some live and some do not. We have some people becoming rich while some remain poor. We are a nation of gluttony and yet there are nations who have been poor and will remain poor because that is the way it is, not because someone made a mistake.We have become such a "relative" society without God that there are no clear cut boundaries between is right and wrong; where everything including our speech is "relative."

The fact that people voted for Obama, seemingly, without really understanding his policies or much about him personally or even cared if he had to answer tough questions are because the could think of nothing else but "change."Did anyone think about what kind of "change" we voted for? Change, like it is a good thing, is it? I do not think many who voted for him really know.

His victory in this election is a clear message that we, as Americans, are all asleep, ignorant, blinded or just do not care about our future generations as our founding fathers did, with interests only in furthering our own personal selfish agendas.

History does repeat itself and it does so mainly because people have no interest in learning from their previous mistakes. It happened in Egypt, Rome and every other nation that has risen into an empire, only to have ultimately collapsed, every single time.

One founding father wrote: "A country that does not know where it has been dooes not know where it is going." Hosea 4:6 in the bible says: "We are destroyed for our our lack of knowledge"

Wake up America, before it is too late, It may already be.

vote for Bush sr and Bush jr and looking back, I am not to pleased with that fact especially now. I voted for him because I felt it was the lesser of two evils and did not care so much for his opponent.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Patriotism and the American flag

What is “Patriotism?”
According to wordnet.princeton online, it is the love of ones country and the willingness to sacrifice for it.
According to Wikipedia, it is the love and devotion for ones country.

There is no doubt, according to who you talk to that “Patriotism” will mean something different.

Is it acceptable to say that “patriotism” is “relative?”
I wonder what our founding fathers thought about patriotism, Should we learn, acknowledge and accept what they said and what they thought true patriotism means? Probably so, since that is how “patriotism” began in this country.

Thomas Jefferson said, "Patriotism is not a short, frenzied burst of emotion, but the long and steady dedication of a lifetime."

Patrick Henry said,”It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! March 23, 1775

Theodore Roosevelt said: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)
Thomas Paine said: "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government." Samuel Adams said: "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
President Abraham Lincoln said:"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." President Theodore Roosevelt said: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
and Mark Twain said: "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
It takes only a moment of time in reading the framers documents to realize that “Patriotism” is something that very few people understand today. There is no mention by them stating that paying taxes is patriotic, nor bigger government is patriotic etc as said by today’s leaders of our country and yet we have entrusted them to run this country for the next term?
What do they know about the law they have sworn to uphold? We, today, cannot speak against our new president or we will be punished and so on. Sounds more like the beginning of a dictatorship that a president of the free world.
What do the citizens of this country know about history or patriotism to know when it is being violated, evidently not much.
I read articles and heard on the radio today that people around the country are flying the flag upside down and some others complained because they say it is “unpatriotic.” The flag being flown upside down is a signal of distress of life and property as stated here:
There are few laws in place that include how it is to be treated or flown, there didn’t need to be, it was in the heart of every American. There are rules and regulations but nothing that is punishable by law. The rules and regulations state the treatment and the reverence for it because of what it stands for.
Most Americans who love this country revere the flag, we honor what it stands for and we are prepared to were defend it. Anyone who didn’t was considered un-patriotic and un-American.
In this world of “Moral relativity” if one can say that “patriotism” is relative then can we also say “distress.” is as well?
I feel it is about time Americans flew the flag upside down due to the condition of this country and I am excited to finally see people wake up to the condition we are in. I realize that some may not feel it is time but I guess it all depends on what the individual considers “distress.”
Let’s take a closer look. The flag regulations state that the “only time to fly the union upside down is in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” There is no such verbiage stating at anytime that it is unpatriotic!
America is in a state of “distress.” The reason simply is that many people do not see how bad the condition of this country is.
“In instances of danger to property:” The government is taking our right to own property away by purchasing it through bailouts and or raising property tax to where we cannot afford it and eminent domain.
“In instances of danger to life:” Our nation kills on the average of 5500 babies a month. In addition to their lives, look at what we as a nation are doing to our own. The government is involved with stem cell research, instances where they can now take lives away, like Terri Shivo, where they can starve and thirst someone to death. How can we put someone like Dr. Kavorkian in prison for doing something the government already does?
Since removing God from school the government has the right to give life and take it away?
In addition, how is it possible that people could face charges of “unpatriotic behavior” when our new president elect refused to wear his flag pin and it was considered acceptable?
We have people burning and desecrating our flag and no one rises up against the extremists because now it is their “right to freedom of expression?” Forgive me but can anyone see anything wrong here?
We have blinded ourselves with “Moral relativism” so badly it is no wonder our country is like a fast moving freight train going straight toward a cliff…only thing is that we have destroyed the only safety net that was in place to catch us once we get there.
In case you do not know what I speak of, I speak of God. I speak of His only son Jesus Christ. As I have said before if we refuse to turn to Him, we will be forced to do so when that time comes, whether we like it or not.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

The state controlled church ( 501c3 )

by Rev. Mark Kiser
"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 1 6: 13)
"Behind every system there is a god. To find the god in any system, locate the source of law in that system. If the source of law is the individual, then the individual is the god of that system. If the source of the law is people, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, then these things are the gods of those systems. If our source of law is a court, then the court is our god. If there is no higher law beyond man, then man is his own god, or else his creatures, the institutions he has made, have become his gods. When you choose your authority, you choose your god, and where you look for your law, there is your god." -Rousas J. Rushdoony
CHURCH (church)n. 1. The assembly of the body of Christ; also, the bride of Christ. [Greek- ekklesia or "called out"]
corporation (kor' pe-ra' shen) n. 1. A body of persons granted a charter legally recognizing then as a separate entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members. b. Such a body created for purPOses of government. 2. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
"Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship have light with dark- ness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, I will dwell among them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord." (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

Now, let us look at some of the common myths of the 501(c)(3) non for profit concept:

The IRS has acknowledged for decades that it is completely unnecess­ary for any church to apply for a tax exempt status. According to the IRS Publication 557, as well as the IRS Code 508, churches and church ministries are "exempt automatically." Application for an exempt status is not only superfluous, but to do so subordinates that church to the IRS. Churches in America have always been nontaxable!

It simply makes no sense for the church to go to the IRS and ask permission to be exempt from a tax the government can't impose in the first place. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit­ing the free exercise thereof."
It would be absurd to suppose that you could have free exercise of religion if you had to pay for it (taxes). If Congress can make no law respecting the church, it can make no law to tax the church. The
IRS lacks the jurisdiction necessary to tax churches in America.

Any contributions made to a church are "automatically qualified" as a tax write-off to the contributor, pursuant to the IRS Publication
526 and IRS Code 170(c)(2)(B). A Church does not have to be a "non­profit charitable organization" to be tax deductible, not does it need the IRS' authorization to be tax deductible. Once again, according to the IRS, churches have that status "automatically."

Jesus did say render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but that is only half of the verse. Jesus went on to say, "and to God the things that are God's." The obvious question to be ask, is at what time did Jesus place His Church under the authority and jurisdiction of Caesar (the State)?
President Thomas Jefferson said, "The Constitution has not placed our religious rights under the power of ANY public functionary." Our founding Fathers forever abolished the old State-Church and Church ­State system. When a person calls for the Church to be subordinate to the State, they are in fact calling for a return of that old State ­Church system. GOD HELP US! For the Church to apply to the government to be exempt from taxes presupposes that the government has legitimate authority to impose taxes on the Church to begin with, which it does not have.

MYTH #4- BEING A 501 (c)(3) HELPS TO LEGITIMIZE A CHURCH IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD. AFTER ALL, PAUL SAID, "Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men." (2 Cor. 8:21)
It is a sad commentary on the Church of our day when any church feels compelled to go to sinners to seek legitimacy.

Take this simple quiz to find out:
1. Is your church governed by a church constitution or by-laws?
2. Does your church elect Trustees, a President, or a Chairman of the board?
3. Is your church Tax Exempt with the I.R.S.?
4. Is your church incorporated in your state?
5. Does your church belong to a Denomination that is incorporated or Tax Exempt?
Many of the above questions you may not have been able to answer off the top of your head. The majority of people who attend Church rarely know anything about the way their church is governed. If you were able to answer some or all the questions with a "yes", then what you are about to read may shock you: CHURCHES HAVE BY-LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONS BECAUSE THE STATE DEMANDS THAT ALL "INCORPORATED CHURCHES" BE GOVERNED BY ONE.
When a Church incorporates, it literally takes a corporate law book and lays it down along side the Bible and declares that the State is now the senior partner in the governing of this new union between the Church and State. To incorporate means to blend two things into one, so that the Church will no longer be what it once was, it becomes a Church, Inc. My friends, we have no right to take the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ which He purchased with His blood, and unite it with the State through incorporation.
A free church is a church that is truly separate, independent and autonomous from the state. It is the true assembly of the body of Christ. It is established by a local body of Christian believers without permission or sanction of the state. According to the Bible, the only "sovereign" of the free church is the Lord Jesus Christ. A true free church cannot incorporate, it cannot seek a 501 (c)(3) status, it cannot become a tax collector for the state, and it cannot accept government ­issued tax numbers (EIN).
The solution rests in the Church organizing and operating as a Church--ecclesia, not as something other than what the Lord Jesus Himself ordained and specified. Jesus spoke of the Church as a "body" with Him as the "Head" of His Church, and we are various "members of the body." The Church therefore is not an "organization" (a legal entity) but a liv­ing, breathing "organism."
This should not be a difficult biblical doctrine to grasp, partic­ularly for the Pastors. Sadly, however, ever since local churches start­ed organizing as tax-exempt non-profit corporations in the mid- twentieth century, and since the incorporated 501 (c)(3) church is now the status quo, many people have hard time conceiving of the church operating as just the church. For some odd reason, just being the church isn't good enough anymore for too many Christians.

The thinking today appears to be that we must be somehow be smarter than Jesus and His disciples were. They refused to incorporate and that refusal resulted in their persecution. Incorporation of all "spontaneous collectivities of persons" became mandatory throughout the Roman Empire by 6 A.D. We're told that we live in a far more complex world that the first century church, and so the church too must inevitably become more complex and adapt to the complexities of the modern information age.
The simplicities of the organizational infrastructure of the early church are no longer adequate to address the complex world in which we live.
Those who hold such beliefs, whether in word or deed, are in reality, making a public proclamation that Jesus Christ is no longer competent to govern His own church and provide for and protect it.
The courts well understand that "a church is not an entity recognized in law," meaning that they have no jurisdiction over the church. However, organizing a church, as a church, is an especially difficult concept for attorneys to grasp. Few attorneys can comprehend that there are things and issues completely outside the purview and jurisdiction of the civil govern­ment, nor do they care for the idea. After all, it’s hard to get many bill­able hours out of those churches that understand that civil government has no jurisdiction over them. A free church needs an attorney like a fish needs a bicycle. Remember, "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
" ... you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (In.8:32)
It is the right of any church to operate free of the corruption and compromising influence and control of the state and it is a right guaranteed by the Congress. "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " A free church is not some radical concept. Rather, the free church was one of the most influential, and certainly one of the most common institutions in early American history. The world view of those men who fought for America's independence embraced an uncompromising belief that the church was not in any way subordinate to any king, parliament, or any other civil government body.
The Church is the religious institution ordained and established by Jesus Christ Himself, and Christ has never and will never delegate His authority to civil jurisdiction to rule in the affairs of His Church. A free church is the opposite of the state church. The Church of England is a state church system. State churches are well known throughout Europe, and there have been state churches there for many centuries. Europeans not only have very low regard for their state churches and government licensed clergy, they often hold them in open contempt, and this is reflected statistically by what is the lowest church attendance in the world.

The church "taking" and actively pursuing a legal status that makes it inferior to, and subordinate of, the civil government. The two most significant ways this occurs is by incorporation (state jurisdiction) and tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status (federal jurisdiction.)
The solution is really very clear. The Church must legally operate as it once had in America (and I might add, quite successfully so). Rather than operating as "tax-exempt nonprofit religious corporations," churches once functioned as "free-churches." A free church operates independent of, and is in no way subordinate to the civil government.
Jesus Christ is in no way legitimized by the license, approval, acknow­ledgement or permission of wicked men. (Those who do not appreciate how corrupt the IRS is, haven't taken time to study public record)
For any Church to submit to the IRS for 501(c)(3) approval in an effort to be perceived by the world as being honest, even if well intent­ioned is, nonetheless, completely illogical. Accountability is a good thing, but only when we make ourselves accountable to those who are honest and trustworthy themselves.
Is it biblical for a church to make itself accountable to the IRS?
Is the IRS trustworthy? Is the IRS itself legitimate? Well let’s see. The Webster's Dictionary defines legitimate as: lawful; genuine; conform­ing to the rules, or standards. With that said, lets look at the IRS' own track record to determine its legitimacy:
The last time the Government Accounting Office even attempted to audit the IRS' books was in 1996 (they are supposed to audit the IRS every year but they are no longer able to do so). In that year, GAO audits deter­mined that over $13 million of the taxes that the IRS collected in 1995 could not be accounted for. Thirteen-billion dollars had vanished, and the IRS offered no better explanation then to shrug their shoulders. The GAO found the IRS' books in such shambles that they declared the IRS' books to be "un-auditable." Furthermore, the IRS refused to be held accountable for the "loss."
So how could 501(c)(3) recognition from such a corrupt entity, an agency that literally holds itself to be above the law, and accountable to no one, result in "legitimacy"? It can't! IT IS BOTH UNBIBLICAL AND ILLOGICAL TO CLAIM THAT A CHURCH BECOMES "LEGITIMATE" BY RECEIVING A 501 (c)(3) STATUS.
For the 501(c)(3) church to openly speak out, or to organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, ect;), that church can and will be silenced by the government. Not to mention, they might jeopardize its tax exempt status.

The 501 (c)(3) has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to really appreciate how easy many of the clergy would sellout. In order to even be considered for tax exempt status by the IRS and organization must fill out and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. However, that's not what the IRS says regarding churches and church ministries, in Publication 557:
"Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include:
Churches, interchurch organizations or local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as men's or women's groups, religious schools, mission society, or youth group." These organizations are exempt automatically!
The "mandatory Exception" rule makes churches exempt automatically.
Thus we see from the IRS' own publications, and tax codes, that it is completely unnecessary for any church to apply for tax exempt status. In the IRS' own words, a church, "is automatically tax exempt."
Many, and I do mean many, ask the question, doesn't a church still need to become a 501(c)(3) so that contributions to it can be taken as a tax deduction? The answer is (if you can't guess) is NO! According to the IRS Publication 526: Churches do not have to have a 501(c)(3) for contributions to be tax deductible.
In The IRS' own words a church is automatically tax deductible.
Or, in the words of Steve Nestor, IRS Sr. Revenue Officer (ret.),
"I am not the only IRS employee who's wondered why churches go to the government and seek permission to be exempt from a tax they didn't owe to begin with, and to seek a tax deductible status that they've always had anyway. Many of us have marveled at how church leaders want to be regulated and controlled by an agency of government that most Americans have prayed would just get out of their lives. Churches are in an amazingly unique position, but they don’t seem to know or appreciate the implications of what it would mean to be free of government control. II

Some Closing Facts ...
Churches in America organizing as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt religious organizations is a fairly recent trend. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for this. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy."
When Johnson presented this in 1954 as a "favor" to the church, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501(c)(3) acceptance has had on the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501(c)(3) church.
Thanks to Rev. Mark Kiser for the article

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Crisis in Amerika?

For many people the last many years have been a cause for concern. For some of us, including myself, it has only been around two years since it really has grabbed my attention. I knew there were things that were wrong but didnt really pay to much attention, after all America has endured many hardships and we proud Americans have always endured. Many friends and aquaintences have told me that things swing like a pendulum, things are cyclical, things go one way and then they return. Although I believe that is true to a point, I am not willing to accept this line of thinking in it's entirety.

The world has changed, even since the election, I feel as if the cycle will no longer continue as we have known it, things will begin to change faster than we could imagine. For those who believed in "change" and voted for it, you are about to witness something you had never dreamed you would see in your life time.

I was never excited about either candidate but knew I felt worse about our new president elect as I have mentioned before in that so much was wrong, so much so that I couldn't see anything that was right about him. I am not racist, I considered voting for Alan Keyes but knew he would not have had the votes to win because of his position on conservative issues that I felt very few wanted.

It occured to me today that we are focused so much on what Bush has or hasn't done and what Obama's plans are for our country, we may be missing the bigger picture. What if Obama, Bush and others have all been a smoke screen, mere puppets to keep the Americans busy fulfilling our own personal agendas while they may have been fulfilling theirs as part of a great plan?? What if this has been happening for many, many years? What if you spent years doing research with a level head and you realized that no matter how far down you dig there is no bottom?

domestic terrorism
federal reserve and jekyl island
trilateral commision
secret associations
concentration camps
north american union

I was never one for conspiracy theory and love the idea of "Ignorance is bliss" especially now.
I love the idea of our patriotism, our love for eachother, our resilience, strength and integrity as a country, the red, white and blue, the star-spangeled banner and "In God we trust" but what if you found out that things were not that rosey?
Some people have become scared, unsure, and feel something is really wrong in this country.
Some people do not notice any difference( which amazes me) due to the glazing over of the newly appointed "messiahship" of the ordained Obama and his unrealistic promises while hiding his dictatorship to those who are blinded.

Why are their warnings given by Joe Biden and Colin Powell and others about a major crisis that we will see January 20 or 21 that the American people dont know about yet? Has anyone thought to research this and find out what its all about? If you are "caught up" with " The great Obama", probably not.

When I first heard Ron Paul,"banish the IRS, HOmeland security, FBI etc", I thought he was a lunatic, a certified nutbag that needed to be admitted into an asylum. After nearly two years of research have realized he knows what he is talking about.

Please check out the following links and give Ron Paul some consideration on what may be coming very soon!!

Ron Paul on The Alex Jones Show" Prepare!!"1/2

Ron Paul on The Alex Jones Show" Prepare!!"2/2

I have spent a great deal of time thinking about what would happen if this were just a Y2K hype to scare the people. I do not write to scare but to bring awareness to the readers of the urgency of the times. I am not a prophet( I dont think I am) I just feel the need to prepare the readers for what may be coming...soon.

I would rather be wrong and look like a fool than be right and live through what appears to be a pretty grim scenario surrounded by people looking for answers and help I, myself could not provide but only through God and His only son Jesus Christ!!

If you are reading this, don't think it is only by chance, this may be just what brought you here.

If you are not "saved" and have never accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior, now may be a good time to reconsider. Would you buy a car or a home and not think you needed insurance?

If you decide that you think it would be wise to reconsider, I suggest you find a Christian church or a believer and ask them to help you or you can stop and say this prayer:

Lord, I am a sinner. I come before you right now and ask forgiveness for my sins.I acknowledge that you died on the cross to save us all from our sins and I thank you for that sacrifice. I repent of my sins and pray that you will wash me clean as snow and give me a fresh start as I accept you as the Lord of my life, my personal savior Jesus Christ. I pray that you will bless me and guide me in the way that I should go and that I may be a vessel for you to further your kingdom and reach out to others, In Jesus name, Amen.

Read your bible and pray, hook up with a local church and get plugged in. Welcome to the kingdom of Gods people!

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Is Evolution science or religion

Science is the human effort to understand,the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions. Consider some examples. An ecologist observing the territorial behaviors of bluebirds and a geologist examining the distribution of fossils in an outcrop are both scientists making observations in order to find patterns in natural phenomena. An astrophysicist is photographing distant galaxies and a climatologist sifting data from weather balloons. The examples above are observational science, but there is also experimental science. A chemist observing the rates of one chemical reaction at a variety of temperatures and a nuclear physicist recording the results of bombardment of a particular kind of matter with neutrons are both scientists performing experiments to see what consistent patterns emerge. A biologist observing the reaction of a particular tissue to various stimulants is likewise experimenting to find patterns of behavior. These folks usually do their work in labs and wear impressive white lab coats, which seems to mean they make more money too.
The critical commonality is that all these people are making and recording observations of nature, or of simulations of nature, in order to learn more about how nature, in the broadest sense, works. One of their main goals is to show that old ideas (the ideas of scientists a century ago or perhaps just a year ago) are wrong and that, instead, new ideas may better explain nature.

Is evolution a science or a religion? If science is truly a humans effort to understand the natural world and through experimentation and and to repeat it in controlled conditions and taking mesurements, how can Evolution be a science?

First of all, Evoution can not nor has ever been measured. There is no place in which to start or finish to be able to get that measurement. At no time has evolution ever been observed through natural phenomenon or experimentation in either controlled or non-controlled environments.

Second, why would someone inject lies, scientific theories that were proven wrong years ago, into our childrens textbooks and teach it as truth? Could it be to make them believe something other than what is true? Why would someone do this?

The answer is simple,the world wants to remove God from existence. If we were to truly believe that we were created by God, that would mean we were created. If we were created then there would have to be a designer. If there were a designer that would mean that God is, in fact, real. With God being real, that destroys so many scientific theories. His word would then be true, and there would be an acceptance of Biblical law in addition to natual law, which apparently we are trying to re-write the book on as well, there would be an outline between "right and wrong" and "moral relativism" would then be wrong.

You see, biblical law, natural law and civil work together by design. Every biblical(moral) law is either supported by natural law, civil law or both. For example, Abortion is murder according to biblical law and civil law and against natural law because it prohibits the propagation of our species. Another example is homosexuality. Homosexuality is against natural law because we are designed to propagate, to reproduce. It is against biblical law because God called it an
"abomination." (Lev. 18:22) "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"(Lev 20:13) "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13) and many others. What people may or may not realize is that homosexuality has been illegal in every state in our country so it violates civil law.It is not hard to see why.

Science leaves people with a choice. One option is to accept, perhaps with some skepticism, the scientific (and only theoretical) understanding of the natural world, which is derived from all the observations and measurements . The other option is to accept traditional understandings of the natural world developed years or centuries ago by people who have lived before us which would allow us to accept and believe almost anything without respect to whether it has any negative consequences.

The study of Science is not become angry. It is what it is. It is a measurable way to try to understand the natural world and how it works with physical evidence. It should never have been used to derail society from the truth nor have the ability to anger people.

Religion is a belief that cannot be measured or calculated. There is no way to observe it, nor experiment with it, or try to simulate it's natural process in a controlled environment.

Is evolution a science or religion?
Science is the measurement, religion is a belief. What do you believe?

Friday, November 7, 2008

America Died Election Night

A good friend of mine wrote this and it was so good I had to re-interate it! Great Job Coach!
Top 10 reasons we won't see America voting herself back her liberty and prosperity

10 Within short order, 50,000,000 illegals will be citizens, virtually all of whom will vote for the communist Democrats, who will be busy giving
them what's left of America

9 Just to make sure they vote that way, these naturalized invaders will be required to take a "civics" course - based on the one in government schools now (which I've studied), and on the Ayers/Obama model - on that will brainwash them to be world federalist Marxists; as in the "Teach for America" program, anyone that deviates from this ideology will not pass

8 The "Fairness Doctrine" will mean the pro freedom message will not be allowed on the airwaves.Fair? I think not, unless fairness is a relative term as well.

7 "Grassroots Lobbying Reform" will mean congress must approve any mass e-mails advocating that people contact their representatives about pending legislation (with jail terms and huge fines for violators). This approval will require 45 days notice, meaning by the time any approved mailouts reach their readers it will be too late to have any effect on the given legislation.

6 "Hate Crimes" legislation - modeled on similar laws in Europe, Australia, and Canada - will slap jail time and/or closing of ministries on pastors who cite Biblical instructions that relate to current issues.Who really hates who? The unnaccountable hate accountability.

5 Obama will "reach across the aisle" to extend McCain-Feingold to the Internet, meaning that there, as everywhere else throughout the media, issues ads by advocacy groups cannot refer to candidates' voting record within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary; that same Internet will be effectively shut down in terms dissemination of truth when he hands authority over it over to the UN.

4 ACORN will have carte blanche to steal any election it wishes to steal (like the various states where, yesterday, its Supreme Court-blessed voter fraud most likely made the difference), any way it wishes to steal it. Even investigations into its previous outrages will be jettisoned. Let alone judicial appointments (which will happen over time), Obama's immediate sacking of all DA's will mean their replacement by a thoroughly corrupt, thoroughly Marxist, thoroughly anti-American assortment nationwide (worse, even, than Clinton's, if that's possible) that will instead target "enemies of the state" (namely, people like us).

3 Obama's mega-funded "Domestic Security Force" (in which all high school and college students will be forced to serve) will be controlled by the same sort of New Black Panther types who handed him Pennsylvania via intimidation yesterday, and by Nation of Islam types. Obama's policy of no private gun ownership will make resistance to this terrorist army virtually impossible - at or away from polling places.

2 Once they come to power, communists do anything they can - no matter how heinous (in fact, mostly and preferably heinous - to never relinquish it. Plus these reds have learned from their past mistakes in eastern block countries where they lost power. This bunch will act on these lessons to make certain such slip-ups don't occur here.

1 Priorities like unrestricted taxpayer-finance abortion and infanticide, along with the debasement of marriage and universal promotion of the gay agenda, will ramp up the ongoing savaging of the nation's character and moral fiber, further ravaging her will to rise up in righteousness.

No, some things - including anything that's important - are out of the reach of arrogant men to accomplish. The redemption of America, clearly, falls in that "important thing" category.

America died election night. Her initial convulsions happened at places like Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, Miami, Pinellas County, Florida, and El Paso. Yesterday she gave her dying heave. May she rest in peace, and may a new bastion of freedom someday rise from her ashes.

If this is the kind of "Change" you hope for America, you deserve it, you voted for it, Just how long will it take for us to realize how grave a mistake you really made. History does repeat itself, can you tell which part of history will be repeated?

Wake Up Amerika!!

Prop 8 Passes

The people have spoken and the ammendment passes. The California Supreme court overruled the will of the people the first time, will they overrule the will of the people again?

The people against prop 8 when they realized it may fail, decided to file lawsuits to try to get the courts to overrule the ammendment and challenge the Constitutionality of the ammendment due to a clause for equal protection.

The interesting thing is that in America, everyone says that the Constitution is the "law of the land." If this is so then why do they try to bend and manipulate it to make it fit to meet the fulfillment of their agenda? The Constitution was never meant to be bent or manipulated. It was meant for Americans to interpret it according to the time when it was written by our founding fathers.

The constitution was never designed to support immoral agendas like same sex marriage or abortion issues because our founding fathers realized that "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people." It would be better for our constitution to be destroyed amid a people who are so selfish and self-fulfilling, immoral and uncaring as well as the complete disrespect of our individual liberties than to stretch, squeeze, manipulate a document that was meant for Religious and moral Americans.

How can the American people continue to blaspheme God, remove Him from all Facets of society, and in many cases still ask his blessing on a nation that he would prefer to spit out of his mouth for our unwillingness to seek His face?
How can the American people continue to blaspheme our country- burn our flags, spew anti-American sentiments and ignore the sacrifices that have been made so that we may enjoy our freedoms?

Our first ammedment was never designed to where it was a constitutional right to speak against our country and was considered to be an act of treason.Nor was it for the homosexuals to parade the streets performing open and gay sex in our public streets urging our children to attend.

Our laws of this land were written so simply and so easy to understand, but in order to understand them we must be " a religious and moral people."

It is not "rocket science" to see that our foundations of this great society are crumbling but many do not see it, why? Do we not see that school violence, pornography, violence in general,, overcrowding jails, drugs etc are increasing almost every day? Do people not care about the well being of our children? Are we all about the "now", the "Me" generation? Everyone makes excuses in hopes that we will not have to confront these issues and that they will go away, they will not.

There are a demographic who have spoken to elect Obama and the conservatives have conceeded to his win, Would it be appropriate for the conservatives to fight the constitutionality of his win like prop 8 liberals? After all the conservatives feel that there is much about Obama we do not really know. There is, however much we do know and that alone is scary enough to wonder how people could vote for a man who's desire is anything but to unite the United states of America, upholding the constitution with liberty and justice for all.

America has made strides toward socialism for many years but never have we had a more liberal arrogant, narcissistic president in our history.

This is election has confirmed that we are now "The Divided Socialist States of Amerika"
Enjoy it America, you voted for it, I wonder how long it will take before you realize how grave a mistake you really have made.

Wake Up America!!

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Day of the election

This morning my son tells me that they no longer say the pledge of allegiance, which really was no surprise since the states have been migrating away from what made this country great for many years.

While I went to pick him up from school today, I was listening to all of the chaos going on in various states in this country with the election, as we have been for almost two years, but I guess it finally settled in.

We no longer believe in the individual liberty and freedoms that our country was founded on, no longer do we respect or understand life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We would rather give up our freedom and limited government for big government and oppresion as long as they promise they will take care of us.

We are no longer a nation of laws.We no longer view the constitution as the "law of the land." Moral relativity has taken such a stronghold and distorted so much of what is real and true and right and wrong that there is simply no order. We have become uncivilized, barbaric, primitive and selfish. Advancement as a country now has been only to fulfill agendas typical of a dying society.

Aristotle said: " Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society"

I often try to think of a way in which I can get through to those who just don't seem to get it.

Issues like homosexuality, where to have a child both sexes are needed. In one argument they say that a male is not needed because they get the sperm donated from a sperm bank( and use a turkey baster)because we are "lower than dirt." These women were rather offended at my suggestion about both sexes. I wonder why?

It is a fact that both sexes are needed produce a child due to the unique plumbing that differenciates the man from the woman-we were made that way by God who gave us life. In addition how can one argue that it is natural to be with one from the same sex? If it were natural it would follow natural law. To my knowledge there is no species that mates with itself and produces offspring. If this, in fact is true, then it does violate natural law.

Homosexuality is not only unbiblical but unlawful. If we are a nation of laws then why do we not obey the laws regarding homosexuality? Why is it that the Supreme court over turns the rule of the people?

Those who oppose homosexuals are called "hate groups." Why? If Christians do not support homosexuals and are called "hate groups" then wouldn't it stand to reason that pro-homosexuals that oppose Christianity would be "hate groups" as well? Nope, somehow there is a difference.

The difference is that Christians do not hate homosexuals, granted there are extremist groups that give Christianity a bad name, they in fact would not be following the word and intentions of Christ. We dislike homosexual behavior because of how damaging it is to the individual and the family. We do not delight in gay-bashing, physical or mental abuse or anything that would be hurtful to them, however we are to preach the truth about what the bible says about all issues whether it be homosexuality, adultery or stealing .

Somehow, we are seen as hateful for using our freedom of speech and doing what Christ has called us to do, but they can hurt us both physically, mentally and pursue legal action against us and win?

Another example is abortion. There is an argument on which is correct, pro-choice or pro-abortion. I believe in the eyes of God they are the same. We may quarrel over symantics but one thing is clear- Abortion is the killing of a fetus, an unborn child.

We may argue on what stage a baby is to be called a human but maybe the argument should be whether the fetus is actually alive or not.

It is my belief that we will argue anything to our advantage to make it right, if we have enough money we may persuade the courts to make it right.Once the courts say it is now right, is it?

Not necessarily. As I have written above there are two sets of laws, one is the Law of moses or the bible, the other is our Constitution. If civil law contradicts Gods law then it is not a law.

I pray someone finds this blog, reads it, and can understand the importance of reaching out to others in truth and love.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Day before election

I sit in dismay after two years of political rhetoric being forcefed down our throats, the lies, promises and the unshakable belief that this country has become so blind, ignorant of history or so selfish that we can only fight for our own special interests without any regard for future generations. We have been so focused on the economy and "what is in it for us"that we fail to see our plans for the future. We have sold our souls to the government in hopes that it will take care of us. We are more concerned with our paychecks and the money we will get and have traded that in place of national morality.

Although neither two candidates are perfect and neither party is exempt from it's failures, there is one candidate that will seal our doom and "change" this country forever...Socialism? Communism? Marxism? These words have all been used to describe him, accurately,but no one believes it because no one has clearly defined that these terms mean,nor do they appear to care.In my opinion, his actions and inconsistencies reflect a "traitor." One that wouldn't know the first thing about being patriotic, one that has no experience to be our next commander in cheif and one that feels if the questions by the American people are to difficult he will just brush them aside.

I have spoken to many people over the past two years and I do not think there are true "undecided voters" There is such a stark difference between the two, you cannot possibly be.
The majority of voters I speak to have known for along time. To me it is simple,
Are you pro-life?
Do you believe in same sex marriage?
Will you uphold the constitution?
Honesty, integrity, faithfulness?

To some it's as easy as "which candidate will give me money?" To some it's about "foreign policy." Although these are all important issues, the media has successfully muted all the contraversial issues on one side while going after petty issues on the other.

Isn't it clear that "moral relativism" has destroyed our ability to tell the difference between right and wrong? The truth is not nor will it ever be "relative"

The problem, simply put, is our ignorance in history. The fact that we can say, as a country that "there is a separation of chuch and state" is proof. Anyone who actually believes this knows nothing of the history of this great nation and if they do is so caught up in their own agenda that they will spend all of their time disrespecting our constitution, founding fathers documents and re-writing history. The truth doesnt lie, people do.

This country was founded on biblical principles.
Our founding fathers had never intended on separating the church from the state in the terms that were incorectly interpreted by the supreme court.
The bible is the cornerstone of American liberty.

For the sake of our children please become educated before it is too late, I believe it may already be.