THE BEST EXPLANATION OF THE GOSPEL I HAVE EVER HEARD
What follows is a series of five videos. They build, one upon each other, with each succeeding video building of all those that have come before it. The people who put these videos out use Scripture to support every single point they make. In the process, they prove (at least to me, anyway) that we are ‘saved’ under the ‘New Covenant’ in the exact same way as those who were saved under the Old. They also demonstrate that the ‘New Testament’ is not so much new as it is a fuller, more complete explanation of the TANAKH (O.T.) because it benefits from Yeshua’s explanations and the hind-sight which came after the crucifixion and resurrection.Continue reading “The Best Explanation of the Gospel I Have EVER Found”
I turned one of my blog posts into my first sermon. For those of you who are of the mind, I thought I’d share it:
If you love this country, especially if you have been told lies about it, or the truth has been kept from you, you really need to make time to watch this entire show. I’m serious. This should be better than anything Hollywood has ever put out. Watch it tonight, tell me if I was wrong.
When most people think about things such as God, heaven and the spiritual world, they think in terms of what we like to call, ‘the super natural.’ For many, the idea of accepting the possibility that the ‘super natural’ might be real is beyond their ability to accept. And yet, for whatever reason, many of those same people have no problem accepting the possibility that other dimensions might exist. If you were to ask them, they might point to the mathematical models that suggest there are additional dimensions to our universe. Others might claim that science has proven the existence of parallel universes. These people cannot actually touch, see, feel, measure or test these additional dimensions or parallel universes, so their belief cannot be based in science. But yet, they can still accept that these things might be real while rejecting any possibility of the spiritual ‘super natural.’ Why is this?Continue reading “What Do We Mean By ‘Super Natural?’”
I need a quick teaser to catch your attention here. So, let me ask you: when was the last time you learned so much that you started to question whether or not you actually know anything for certain? Well, let me tell you about one of the first times this happened to me.Continue reading “YHWH, Among Other Gods”
If you have not already done so, let me urge you to buy and read, “The Unseen Realm,” by Dr. Michael Heiser. In all honesty, outside of the Bible, it may well be the most important book you will ever read — especially if you want to understand the subject of this post.Continue reading “The Deuteronomy 32 World View”
Outside of the Bible, itself, this may well be the single most important book I have ever read. I cannot urge people to read this book strongly enough. In fact, for any believer, or anyone who seeks to understand the Scriptures on their own terms, this book should be mandatory reading. I consider it to be that important. If you have not read it, buy a copy today, then make time to read it. It will be one of the most enlightening experiences you will ever have.Continue reading “The Unseen Realm, by Dr. Michael Heiser”
To Those Still Following Me:
First, let me start by telling you that I appreciate the fact that you are still there. I honestly do not understand why you’re still there. I mean that, sincerely.Continue reading “Time for a Change”
I have learned that the people of the Ancient Middle East believed there were several ways the gods proved they were gods. While they have no direct bearing on how one obtains salvation, knowing what these methods of declaring deity were can help us to better understand some of the more puzzling passages in our Scriptures. For example:
I saw something today that got me to thinking about the Natural Law behind the immigration issue. As with many things, understanding the definitions behind the words we use can clear up a lot of the confusion surrounding a given issue (this is actually one of the principles of Natural law: words mean things). Therefore, I propose that we take a closer look at the Natural Law principles behind the immigration issue.
First, a nation must have borders. This is part of the definition of ‘nation.’ A nation also has its own government. One of the primary purpose of all just governments is to protect that nation from invasion by outside forces. This requires that the traffic across the nation’s borders be policed. Part of this policing process is the control of who is allowed to enter and, more importantly, who is allowed to remain in and even become a part of that country. In short, immigration is connected to national defense.
Now, another part of what makes up a nation is its laws and culture. If a person comes to live in a different country (i.e. emigrates to this new country), they are seeking to become part of that country. If they do so according to the laws of that nation, and with the full knowledge of that nation’s government, this is called legal immigration. The very fact that the nation would allow them to enter and become a part of it implies legality. However, if a person enters a nation without going through the legal process, that is called illegal immigration. They have knowingly and willingly violated the laws of that nation.
We have already stated that one of the primary purposes of a nation’s government is to protect its citizens from outside invasion. This includes illegal immigration. By entering a nation without letting the government know you are doing so, you are invading that country. Now, most people think that an invasion must be done by an armed force, but this is not the case. The word can mean ‘the spread of something harmful.’ For example: a virus can be said to ‘invade’ your body. Is a virus armed? No. But it is still an invader because it is harmful to your body. The same is true of illegal immigration — especially in cases where the illegal aliens refuse to assimilate to the culture of the nation they invaded.
When a large number of illegal aliens invades a country (or State), it can start to subvert that country’s culture and, if the government refuses to enforce its laws, it subverts the legal system. This is actually an attack on that nation and its government. If a foreign government were to try to subvert another nation’s government, it would be considered an act of war. If a group of citizens of that country were to try to subvert the government from outside the legal system, that would be considered subversion and/or sedition. In most countries, this is illegal. If it is done with force, it is called a revolution. Illegal aliens are no different. Because they are illegal, they cannot affect change through legal means. And because they are illegal, they are — by definition — foreign citizens. Therefore, if illegal aliens reach a point where they start to disrupt the culture and legal system of a nation, they constitute an invasion.
This is all fact because this is all a matter of definition. An illegal alien is not an ‘undocumented worker.’ First, you do not know if they are ‘undocumented.’ The government may well have some form of documentation on them. Nor do you know they are a worker. They may have come simply to take advantage of the welfare system, which requires documentation, or they may be the children of another illegal alien. Therefore, the notion that illegal aliens are not illegal invaders is an act of lawlessness. When it is condoned by the government, that lawlessness reaches the level of breaching the Social Contract. If the People deem this breach significant enough, this is grounds to dissolve that contract, and the government along with it.
Now, if members of the government not only ignore but also condone this illegal immigration, then they become active participants in subversion/sedition. If a country has laws prohibiting such immigration — as America does — then those government leaders have declared war on the very nation they have sworn to protect. If these leaders go further and seek to import immigrant who they know will not assimilate into the culture or embrace the nation’s laws, then this is an escalation of that war against the nation they swore to protect. All of this is lawlessness, and all lawlessness is a violation of Natural Law.
But let me ask you to consider this issue one step further. What if an alien culture were to invade earth? They do not come with weapons, they just come and move in. They may even be saying they come in peace, they just need some place to live because their world died. So they settle in and among us — and not necessarily after asking or going through any legal process. They just do it. You’ve probably seen a science fiction movie like this. The old shows, “V” and “Visitors” come to mind, as does “The X-Files.” Anyway, after a while, it is revealed that these aliens have their own agenda and they have slowly been enacting it. The purpose is to ‘fundamentally transform’ the entire structure of the planet where they come to rule over us and we are made to serve them. Do you see the process? Can you understand how it works?
Now consider this:
Under this man, illegal immigration has exploded. What’s more, his Administration has imported large numbers of people who have openly stated they have no intention of assimilating. In fact, in places where the Islamic population has become large enough, such as Deeborne, Michigan, these ‘immigrants’ have started to reject our laws in favor of Shari’a law. How is it that this is not recognized as an invasion, and an invasion lead by the very people who swore to protect this nation from just such a thing as this? How is it we can see the invasion in a science fiction movie, but we cannot see the very same thing when it is carried out in real life — and for the same reasons?
A ‘fundamental; transformation’ enacted in contradiction to a nation’s laws is called a revolution. In the U.S., that is illegal. Under Natural Law, that is illegal. It is not ‘opinion,’ it is by definition. That makes it a fact. And yet, a large portion of our society accepts the lie that what I am explaining is ‘racism,’ or ‘bigotry.’ I ask you, dear reader:
How does a nation survive when it defends the very people who are destroying it, as well as the process by which those people are affecting its destruction?
And lest anyone think I am singling out any particular person or political Party, let me point out that this is being done by a large group of well-organized and well-funded people, many of whom are not even in government. And it is being done by both Parties. There are very few innocent hands in this: the majority of those people in the highest levels of our government and corporate America have openly declared themselves to be enemies of the American people. Sadly, the means by which they control us (i.e. keeping us dumbed-down through our schools, distracted by entertainment and fighting among ourselves politically) has been far, far too effective.
Oh, I almost forgot. Another way they protect themselves is to call people who explain what they are doing “conspiracy theorists.” If you are thinking that about me right now, then I don’t blame you, but I ask you to consider just how well their plan is working if they have even managed to fool you?
This post has been re-written. After careful consideration, I decided I did not like the way I originally presented my case. As it stands now, this post better represents the point I was originally trying to make. However, if the reader is interested, they can find my original post here.
Our founders were not perfect men (or women), but they tried to be the best people they could be. In the process, they aimed for what they considered to be the perfect ideal, and set principles by which they could strive to meet that ideal. Then they set high standards for themselves, both as a nation, as well as individually. They measured their success against these standards, which were, in turn, measured against their ideal. All of this produced an exceptional nation. Today, many look at the state of this nation and wonder how we could have fallen so far from what our founders created. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the 2016 Presidential race. So I started thinking. Since we can’t seem to figure out where, how or why we’ve gone wrong, maybe we should go back to them founders and see if they have any advice. In this case, I was looking specifically for advice in how to vote. I’d like to share just a little of what I found, and some commentary on what it means.
We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands; we have a check upon two branches of the legislature . . . the power I mean of electing at stated periods [each] branch. . . . It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman, and to examine and judge for himself of the tendency of political principles and measures. Let us examine, then, with a sober, a manly . . . and a Christian spirit; let us neglect all party [loyalty] and advert to facts; let us believe no man to be infallible or impeccable in government any more than in religion; take no man’s word against evidence, nor implicitly adopt the sentiments of others who may be deceived themselves, or may be interested in deceiving us.
[John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, ed. (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. 1, p. 81, from “‘U’ to the Boston Gazette” written on August 29, 1763.]
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), Vol. IV, p. 256, in the Boston Gazette on April 16, 1781.]
Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), Vol. III, p. 236-237, to James Warren on November 4, 1775.]
Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for [your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against the oppressor, or resolutly oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch over your liberties and privileges – civil and religious – with a careful eye.
[Matthias Burnett, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Norwalk, An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Printed by Hudson & Goodwin, 1803), pp. 27-28.]
I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the Bible. It is in substance, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my politics – the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced upon by our people.
[Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, John Blassingame, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), Vol. 2, p. 397, from a speech delivered at Ithaca, New York, October 14th, 1852.]
[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . . Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it – and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].
[Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), Lecture XV, pp. 281-282.]
Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
[James A. Garfield, The Works of James Abram Garfield, Burke Hinsdale, editor (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1883), Vol. II, pp. 486, 489, “A Century of Congress,” July, 1877.]
If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . . from inward corruption – from the disregard of right principles . . . from losing sight of the fact that “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, . . . our Union . . . will be “only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.”
[Rev. Francis J. Grimke, from “Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black and White, Alike,” March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro Eloquence, Alice Moore Dunbar, editor (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2000), pp. 246-247.]
A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.
[Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, ed. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), Vol III, pp. 544-545.]
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.]
The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. I, p. 161.]
The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, ed. (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. 10, p. 235.]
[T]he rational and peacable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), Vol. 12, p. 136.]
[S]hould things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), Vol. 10, p. 245.]
When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.
[Supreme Court Justice William Paterson reminding his fellow justices of Proverbs 29:2. United States Oracle (Portsmouth, NH), May 24, 1800.]
Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad. . . . But if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn. . . .[T]hough good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.
[William Penn quoted from: Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private and Public Life of William Penn (London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813) Vol. I, p.303.]
Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.
[Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 108, from remarks made at a public reception by the ladies of Richmond, Virginia, on October 5, 1840.]
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character. . . . When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.
[Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States (New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), pp. 18, 19.]
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.
[Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, ï¿½49.]
Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral character of those whom they invest with authority either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches.
[John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. IV, pp. 266, 277.]
I found a few more in my own files:
John Quincy Adams
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
If the Moral character of a people degenerate, their political character must follow. These considerations should lead to an attentive solicitude to be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers…and judge of the tree by its fruits.
Charles Carroll (signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress)
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
[The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry by Bernard C. Steiner 1907, from a letter from Charles Carroll, Nov. 4, 1800.]
James Iredell (US Supreme Court Justice under Washington)
I think the Christian religion is a divine institution and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principles and practice.
[The Papers of James Iredell, Dan Higginbotham editor, Vol 1, p.14.]
John Marshal (argued, by some to be our greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)
The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.
[letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833.]
I could continue, but I wonder, what good would that do? How many who read this will even bother to read the few founders that have been quoted here? And of those few, how many would take the time to read any more than this? I know the answer, and it saddens me. I know because it was not that long ago that I wouldn’t have been bothered to read even these few quotes I’ve posted. And herein lies our nation’s problem: we have no regard for the duties and responsibilities that accompany true liberty. We are just a collection of spoiled individuals who want our cake and to eat it too, only we do not want to work for it, nor do we want to suffer any negative side effects for eating the whole thing ourselves.
Still, if this nation wishes to restore itself to what it once was, the founders have pointed us in the direction we must go. That direction does not point to a man or woman, or to Washington D.C. and government. It points to the mirror, and to the Creator and His Law. We must fix ourselves first, and that means we must bow to and accept the Creator’s definitions of what is right and what is wrong. We are not free to make up our own morality. We must acknowledge the Creator’s universal morality, and we must live according to its laws. What’s more, we must hold each other accountable to that universal moral law. Otherwise, we will grow ever more corrupt in ourselves, and if we are all corrupt ourselves, how can we ever hope to elect a virtuous person, let alone recognize one if and when we find them?
To hammer home my point, I found a little more wisdom in the words of our founders, though I will not bore the reader with more than a few passages this time:
The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed…so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.
Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.
[speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788]
It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.
The founders were nearly universal in their opinion: liberty rests on the shoulders of a moral people, and morality can only be found in religion (i.e. belief in the Creator and obedience to His laws). The founders were equally clear on another point: if and when the people turn away from God, they will become corrupt; and when the people become corrupt, they will fall into tyranny and slavery. Now, others may wish to disagree, and in fact, I know they will. But the founders built this nation upon these principles, and it became the greatest nation in modern times. Today, we reject their ideal as well as the principles by which they strove to achieve it, then we wonder why we are no longer as great as we once were. To me the reason should be easily recognized: we are no longer the nation we once were because we are no longer the people we used to be. Therefore, if we want to be the nation we used to be, maybe, just maybe, we should start by trying to become the people we used to be once again?
THIS SERIES SEEKS TO HELP THE READER UNDERSTAND HOW THE PAST DRIVES THE PRESENT
Our schools no longer teach history. Why? Because, if you know history, and understand how the past drives the present, it is nearly impossible to manipulate you. On the other hand, if what you know about the past is a carefully crafted lie, and you embrace that lie, then you are not only easy to manipulate, but you will also protect your programming. What do I mean by protecting your programming? I mean that, if anyone tries to tell you the truth about history and/or explain how you have been deceived, you will cling tighter to your deceivers while lashing out at the person who is actually trying to free you from them. In short, you will protect the lie by destroying the person telling the truth. This is all connected to the Communists ongoing efforts to subvert this nation. Only, today, the Communists have a new ally — Islam!
OK, I’m going to be honest with you. This is going to be a long piece. That is out of necessity. There is a lot of information that has to be presented before it can all be tied together. Even then, time will not permit anything more than the most brief mention of all the pieces. Therefore, I beg the reader to stick with me until the end. There will be time for more detailed research afterward. What is imperative is that the reader first see that this nation is under attack by the very people we think we can trust.
This starts a long time ago, back in the 1800’s. But I’m going to start with Joseph McCarthy and ‘red-baiting.’ I’m going to say this right now: I consider McCarthy to have been a patriot! He did not accuse a single innocent person! History has shown that everyone McCarthy accused of being a Communist was — in fact — a Communist! This is why he was destroyed: to stop him from exposing the infiltration of our government, schools and our news and entertainment media. Today, we would think of this in terms of ‘race-baiting’ and playing the ‘race card.’. Certain political ideologies tend to push their agendas by using people of color as front men. This way, if anyone tries to expose our attack their agenda, that person or group can be labeled a racist and destroyed. Not only does this protect the agenda, but it serves as a warning to anyone else who might consider opposing that agenda in the future. This is the essence of political correctness: the destruction of anyone who dares to object to the political agenda of those in power. It is a form of terrorism, and it is a Communist invention.
Let’s go back to McCarthy. He tried to expose the Communists who were taking over the government and social institutions of this nation. Why? Because Communism has vowed to destroy this nation from within. McCarthy knew that Communist leaders had made this vow, he took them at their word and he was trying to honor the threat. In other words, McCarthy was trying to defend this nation from an outside influence that sought to destroy it.
Here is what McCarthy knew, and it goes back farther than the debated quote attributed to Khrushchev. We start with Josef Stalin’s statement of his political end goal:
World dictatorship can be established only when the victory of socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries … [and] when these federation of republics have finally grown into a world union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state.
What did the leader of the Communist world want? A world dictatorship. And what was required before that could be achieved? The elimination of a certain ‘federation of republics’ by turning them into Socialist Democracies. Dear reader, that is a reference to Stalin’s intention to undermine the free Western world. How do we know?
America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.
Well, at least Stalin saw the U.S. as a country that had to be turned into a socialist democracy. But how did Stalin plan to turn America into a Socialist Democracy? Easy. He would simply apply the techniques his mentor used to take over Russia. I give you Vladimir Lenin’s keys to taking over the world:
“A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution.”
So you have to start by creating a revolutionary situation (incidentally, that is what the 1960’s were all about: a Communist attempt to create a revolution in America). So, how does one create a revolutionary situation in a free republic such as America?
Destroy the family, you destroy the country.
You destroy the family by taking over the schools:
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.
You also have to destroy their religious foundations:
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.
Then, control the narrative by seizing control of the press — so that no one can warn the people and you can destroy those who try to do so:
The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy’s cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this.
Once you have the press, turn them into community organizers for the Communist movement:
The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
Then you undermine the free market:
The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency.
You do this through a system of taxation and deficit spending by the government — especially on programs which give the State more control, such as education health care and Social Security:
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
And, finally, you use all of this to destroy patriotism and turn the people against their own country. You tell them their founders were all just rich old white slave owners (which is a demonstrable lie). You tell them the nation was stolen from the native peoples (a half-truth, at best). You tell the people that the nation is rigged for men, and that it wages war on women and minorities (so say they women and minority millionaires, entertainment stars, business leaders and even President). And you tell the people that their nation is the pariah of the world: that all other nations hate them because of the things for which they stand (while ignoring all the people risking life and limb to get here so they can share in those things, themselves).
Oh, I almost forgot. You need to remove all the checks and balances that protect the people from government corruption and abuse by moving everything toward direct elections (where your control over the people can control how they vote):
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
You must disarm the people because:
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
And you can never allow any form of morality to enter into your own movement:
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
Is any of this starting to look familiar yet? It should, because it is exactly what we have seen happen in this country since the Communists started to infiltrate our government and social institutions. The majority of our current problems are the direct result of these policies being put into place by Communist subversives. And now, we have the added problem of Islamic subversion on top of this.
So, where did this start? Well, it goes back farther than Joseph McCarthy. It goes back farther than FDR (yes, he was a Communist sympathizer who either placed or allowed many Communists to be placed in the highest levels of our government). In fact, it goes back farther than Woodrow Wilson, but it was with Wilson that Communist subversion first found its way into the White House. Wilson took the Progressive movement from Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans and used it as the Trojan Horse by which he could sell Communism to the American people. Wilson also appointed other Communists to positions in government and education for the purpose of turning the nation into a Communist utopia. I know this to be true because Wilson was so bold as to explain all of this in his writings. He didn’t even try to camouflage his intentions; he stated them boldly, and in plain language.
This is the truth about the history of Communist subversion in America. It may be denied, but it cannot be refuted. It has all been documented beyond a reasonable doubt. The only reason America does not know about it is because the Communists have largely succeeded. They own our schools, our entertainment media, our press and every level of government. However, once you know what to look for, you will see their fingerprints all over the news and events of the day. What’s more, I am not the only one who has been trying to warn the American people. Here are just a few of the countless other patriots who have tried to sound the alarm, and who have largely been ignored by a people who simply do not care:
Accused of creating a bogus Red Scare and smearing countless innocent victims in a five-year reign of terror, Senator Joseph McCarthy is universally remembered as a demagogue, a bully, and a liar. History has judged him such a loathsome figure that even today, a half century after his death, his name remains synonymous with witch hunts.
But that conventional image is all wrong, as veteran journalist and author M. Stanton Evans reveals in this groundbreaking book. The long-awaited Blacklisted by History, based on six years of intensive research, dismantles the myths surrounding Joe McCarthy and his campaign to unmask Communists, Soviet agents, and flagrant loyalty risks working within the U.S. government. Evans’s revelations completely overturn our understanding of McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the Cold War.
None Dare Call It Treason is a careful compilation of facts from hundreds of Congressional investigations of communism and dozens of authoritative books on the communist-socialist conspiracy to enslave America. It dissects the failures of the Eisenhower Administration just as effectively as it details the blunders of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. It documents the concurrent decay in America’s schools, churches, and press which has conditioned the American people to accept 20 years of retreat in the face of the communist enemy. You won’t finish None Dare Call It Treason without concluding that America is in serious trouble.
Former Leftist radical David Horowitz blows the lid off the dangerous liaison between U.S. liberals and Islamic radicals. With America’s battle against the disastrous force of terrorism at hand, Horowitz takes us behind the curtain of the unholy alliance between liberals and the enemy-a force with malevolent intentions, and one that Americans can no longer ignore.
And these are just a few of the many sources that have documented the Communist subversion of America, and the alliance between these Communist subversives and Islam. In fact, the Communists just perfected a strategy that Islam has been using for more than 1400 years. In practice, there is little difference between the two. Islam simply slaps the guise of religion on the face of Socialism. Take a close look at the narrative in America today and you will find that Communism and Islam both seek to dominate the United States, and both use the tactics I just described to achieve their goal and protect their agenda from exposure and attack.
What if I said:
“The biggest problem facing the world today isn’t the individual Homo Sapien animal, but ‘humanists.’ By that, I mean animals who actually believe they are humans, and that being human gives them special rights that Homo Sapien animals do not have. But the problem is much worse than this. These ‘humanists’ also believe that being human places certain duties on them, and if they are not diligent in performing these duties, they will lose their claim to being human and, along with their claim, all their rights. In other words, if they neglect these duties, they will become animals again, just like the rest of us.”
If I said this to you, how would you respond? Would you disagree? If so, why? Or better yet, how? On what grounds would you disagree? What line of reasoning would you use? What evidence would you present to support your argument? Do not dismiss my line of questioning. How you answer is critically important to understanding the real point of this essay.
If you simply object to my claim that ‘humanists’ are the biggest threat to our world today because you do not like my definition of a ‘humanist,’ then you are being ‘intolerant’ — at least as the modern world defines it. You are placing your personal feelings above mine without giving me any reason to believe they are better than my beliefs. If you go further and apply force to your objection — force of any kind — then you cross over into the realm of ‘ideological imperialism.’ In other words, you are trying to force me to conform to your beliefs simply because you think your beliefs are superior to mine. There’s little difference between this practice and those who justified slavery, or taking land from native peoples. Any attack that could be made against those who justified slavery or the taking of land from native peoples would apply equally to people who think they are justified in using force to make others comply with their belief system.
Now, before we go further, let me ask you if you understand the implications of what I just said. If you object to my definition of ‘humanists,’ but you cannot give me a reason for your objection other than how you feel, are you sure you aren’t one of these ‘humanists?’ I mean, if your only reason for objecting is the way you feel, but you still object, then doesn’t that suggest that you believe you have a right to object and a duty to correct me? Does that then mean you think I am one of the animals? So why are you objecting? I mean, haven’t I actually justified your feelings? Didn’t I provide a reason for you to feel you have the right to feel the way you do and a duty to correct anyone who disagrees? So you are humanist and you think I am an animal that needs to be corrected….
OK, do you see the slippery slope in all this? Without something to anchor us, we can ‘reason’ ourselves into circles that double back upon ourselves. So, how do we anchor ourselves? What do we use to keep us from going in these absurd circles?
In short, we are talking about the need for a consistent way of understanding the world: a world view, if you will. For most of human history, man has sought to make sense of things through reasoning. Now, there are many forms of reasoning, and not all of them are based in formal logic. Some are based in superstition, others in logic, but all have their own rational. One of the fundamental principles of all good reasoning is consistency. This requires a set of rules to guide our thinking, and the correct application of those rules to everything we consider. And one of the primary requirements for consistency is the need for fixed definitions. In fact, all reasoning is built upon definitions. Without them, we simply cannot reason. Now, let’s go back to the start of this essay and my definition of ‘humanist.’
Why might someone object to my definition of ‘humanist?’ Well, for one, I excluded all homo sapiens who might not agree with my definition. In fact, I define them as ‘animals.’ In addition to this, I categorically denied that these ‘animals’ have rights. Furthermore, I implied that the real humans (i.e. ‘humanists’) have a duty to treat the animals a certain way or lose their claim to being human, and thus, lose their rights in the process. For most of us, this is simply an unacceptable definition, but why? We know this definition is wrong, but how and on what grounds would we object to it? And by what right could we do so without admitting we are ‘humanists?’ (Do you see why I said not to dismiss my earlier line of questioning?). Now stay with me, please. I’m not going to go into a lengthy argument about the definition of a ‘human.’
I took you through all of that to make this point: objective definitions do exist and they do not depend how we feel or what we believe. Now, we may describe a definition in different terms, such as defining a human in terms of DNA or membership in the species of homo sapiens, or as moral agents, but all of those criteria exist as a material part of the thing we are calling a human. They apply to all members of ‘human.’ In the case at hand, they would apply equally to the ‘humanists,’ as well as to the ‘animals.’ Therefore, we could use these criteria to refute my definition of ‘humanist.’ This is because a thing is defined by objective criteria. This principle even applies to ideas! So let me change my argument and ask you how you would deal with this:
“God has told me that all humans who believe in him are to be called ‘humanists.’ If a person does not believe in god, they are to be considered ‘animals.’ Because they believe, only ‘humanists’ have rights. God gives them to believers as a reward for believing in him. ‘Animals’ have no rights. However, along with these rights come responsibilities, or duties. One of these duties is to obey everything god says. If a believer does not do so, they become an ‘animal’ and will be punished by god. He will send them to a fiery hell for eternity. Another of these duties is to convince all ‘animals’ to believe in and obey god. If the ‘animals’ refuse, they are to be enslaved and pay believers a tax, or they are to be killed. Still another duty is to kill any ‘humanist’ who stops believing in god, or who tries to change god’s commands. ‘Humanists’ are to obey these commands until there are only ‘humanists’ left in the world. This will bring about world peace.”
What do you say now? If you object simply because you do not like my claims, then you are being a intolerant, a bigot and an ideological imperialist and maybe even a racist (i.e. a ‘hater’ of the worst order). What’s more, if you object, you are saying that you are above god. Heck, you are saying that you are god! After all, I am saying my source of authority here is god — not me. Therefore, only god can correct me. So, I ask you again: how do you respond? Do you tell me my definition of a ‘humanist’ is wrong? On what grounds? This is god’s definition, I am just the messenger. Do you try to change that definition? So you think you are god now? Remember: ‘Humanists’ are commanded to kill you for that! How can you condemn someone for obeying god? Do you deny there is a god? Where is your proof? Again: how do you respond? On what grounds do you object? Where is the objective evidence that I am wrong?
If you haven’t already realized it, I have been talking about Islam this whole time. More specifically, I have been talking about those people who have tried to differentiate between ‘Muslims” and ‘Islamists.’ The people who try to make this distinction are the ‘intolerant, bigoted’ ideological imperialist and racist haters‘ I mentioned previously. I say this because they are forcing their beliefs onto Islam in the face of objective reality. Muhammad never made such distinctions. Muhammad said there are only Muslims (those who obey him), infidels (non-Muslims) and apostates (Muslims who disobey, try to change or leave Islam). These are the criteria which define a Muslim, and there is no higher authority as to what defines a Muslim than Muhammad. That means we cannot object to these criteria. If we do, we fall over the edge of that slippery slope I illustrated in the beginning of this essay.
I drug you through all of the above just to help you understand the mistake these people are making when they try to create ‘good Muslims’ and separate them from ‘Islamists.’ It does not matter what you and I think, in the eyes of obedient Muslims, these people are claiming to be god! Those obedient Muslims are commanded to kill such people! Therefore, if we object to the things Muhammad taught, and that true Muslims believe (true according to Muhammad — not me), we must do so on objective grounds. This can only be done by granting all of Muhammad’s claims, then proceeding to demonstrate how and why they cannot be true. Anything less than this will accomplish nothing. In the eyes of obedient Muslims, we will be affirming Muhammad’s words and justifying his commands. What’s more, the only way we are going to show that Muhammad was wrong is to assume the same type of reasoning being used by Muslims, and that is spiritual reasoning, not ‘scientific.’
This is the only way we will be able to deal with the threat of Islam and we had better start accepting this fact, and fast! Because Islam is incompatible with our world view as well as our system of government. We cannot treat it the same way we treat other religions — because it is unlike any other religion in the world. It is a political ideology cloaked as a religion, and it has commanded its followers to conquer the world for their god. The rest of the world will either accept this and act accordingly, or… Or it will be conquered by Islam!
UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE: Should Believers Be Supporting Donald Trump?
As I clearly state in the ABOUT page, this blog is written for believers: to help them understand the Scriptures and apply them to their daily lives. That is what this post is attempting to do: to put the Scriptures in their proper context so that we can accurately apply them to the choice we make in our daily walk with the Lord.
My heart is heavy. It is saddened by all those believers who are saying that God is going to use Donald Trump. That the Lord is humbling Trump in preparedness for a great work. These believers have convinced themselves that God is going to use Trump to restore this nation. Sadly, I cannot stand with those who believe this. I find no reason in Scripture to believe this is what God is doing. However, I can find firm ground upon which to state that I believe the opposite is true. There is every reason to believe that the Lord is using Trump as an instrument of His judgment against this nation.
Now, let me get this out of the way right now. I know that the Lord can use broken people to work His will. I know that the Lord is the only one who knows what is in the heart of any given person. I know that the Lord can humble people. I know all of this. But I also know the rest of what Scripture tells us, and I am unwilling to ignore the whole council of the Lord simply to make myself feel better about an uncertain future.
For example: the Lord’s Word tells us we may not know a person’s heart, but we can know them by their fruit (i.e. the things they do). In that case, I know Donald Trump by his fruit, and it is of a wicked and unrepentant man. Now, people can hate me for saying this all they want. I do not mind. I’ll accept persecution for being faithful to God’s Word. I will count it blessing. All I know is that, if an honest believer looks at Trump’s life and compares it to this passage, that believer has only one judgment to make regarding Donald Trump:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
I see no evidence that Donald Trump has been saved. In fact, given his recent vindictive comments toward the Republican leadership, I see nothing but a continuation of the same person Trump has always been. Therefore, I have no reason to believe Trump is of God, and Scripture tells us a person is either with the Lord, or they are against Him. Therefore, I must consider Trump to be against the Lord.
Now, if we have reason to believe a person is opposed to the Lord, then Scripture is very clear as to how we are to treat them:
2 Timothy 3:1-9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“Difficult Times Will Come”
3 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, [a]haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of [b]godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.6 For among them are those who [c]enter into households and captivate [d]weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7 always learning and never able to come to the [e]knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as [f]Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.
I look to Donald Trump and I see the very embodiment of the type of person this passage speaks, and I hear the warning loud and clear:
Stay away from such men as these!
And more than this, I know what Scripture says about the person who knowingly joins themselves to such people:
2 John 9-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 [a]Anyone who [b]goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
Once again: I look at Donald trump and I see no evidence that he follows the teachings of Christ. Therefore, if I know this and I greet him (i.e. welcome him and give him my support), I share in his evil because I did knowingly and willingly join myself to him. This is why I cannot support Donald Trump. It is also why I reject those believers telling me God is going to humble Trump and then use him to restore the nation. In fact, when I hear people talking about how God will use Trump to restore peace and prosperity to America, all I hear is:
Ezekiel 13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
False Prophets Condemned
13 Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to those who prophesy from their own [a]inspiration, ‘Listen to the word of the Lord! 3 Thus says the Lord [b]God, “Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing. 4 O Israel, your prophets have been like foxes among ruins. 5 You have not gone up into the breaches, nor did you build the wall around the house of Israel to stand in the battle on the day of the Lord. 6 They see [c]falsehood and lying divination who are saying, ‘The Lord declares,’ when the Lord has not sent them; yet they hope for the fulfillment of their word. 7 Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said, ‘The Lord declares,’ but it is not I who have spoken?”’”
8 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Because you have spoken [d]falsehood and seen a lie, therefore behold, I am against you,” declares the Lord God. 9 “So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will [e]have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, [f]that you may know that I am the Lord God. 10 It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; 11 so tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. 12 Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, ‘Where is the plaster with which you plastered it?’” 13 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume it in wrath. 14 So I will tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the Lord. 15 Thus I will spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I will say to you, ‘The wall [g]is gone and its plasterers are gone, 16 along with the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace,’ declares the Lord God.
17 “Now you, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people who are prophesying from their own [h]inspiration. Prophesy against them 18 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe to the women who sew magic bands on [i]all wrists and make veils for the heads of persons of every stature to hunt down [j]lives! Will you hunt down the [k]lives of My people, but preserve the [l]lives of others for yourselves? 19 For handfuls of barley and fragments of bread, you have profaned Me to My people to put to death [m]some who should not die and to keep [n]others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies.”’”
20 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against your magic bands by which you hunt [o]lives there as [p]birds and I will tear them from your arms; and I will let [q]them go, even those [r]lives whom you hunt as [s]birds. 21 I will also tear off your veils and deliver My people from your hands, and they will no longer be in your hands to be hunted; and you will know that I am the Lord. 22 Because you disheartened the righteous with falsehood when I did not cause him grief, but have [t]encouraged the wicked not to turn from his wicked way and preserve his life, 23 therefore, you women will no longer see [u]false visions or practice divination, and I will deliver My people out of your hand. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.”
Those who have ears to hear, let them hear…
AND TO THOSE WHO WOULD SAY I AM ENDORSING HILLARY CLINTON: you should read this post before you affirm my opinion by bearing false witness against me.
[NOTE: the truth is, the last passage I quoted, Ezekiel 13, is actually connected to the message in my post about Obama and Hillary. Look at what all the prophets were saying, and to whom they were addressing their warnings. It is all connected to the Northern Kingdom, and to Ephraim. This is why all of this is relevant today: because America is Ephraim/Manasseh!]
BIBLICAL SYMBOLISM: What Should We Make Of The Flies And Bees Seen Around Political Leaders?
As I clearly state in the ABOUT page, this blog is written for believers: to help them understand the Scriptures and apply them to their daily lives. That is what this post is attempting to do: to put the Scriptures in their proper context so that we can accurately apply them to the choice we make in our daily walk with the Lord.
During the second Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, a fly was seen to land on Hillary Clinton’s face. This is the second time we have witnessed a fly landing on the face of a Presidential candidate in the last three election cycles [Note: it may well have happened in all three of the last elections, but I’m not sure, so I will not make that claim.] So, what should we make of this?
I have already written about the Biblical significance of flies in connection to President Obama. You can find that post here:
Now, I am well aware that I am not alone in noting that there is a Biblical significance in all this. I’ve seen the posts referencing Beelzebub in connection to both Hillary and Obama. However, I have a very different take on what the flies and bees surrounding these two people may be trying to tell us.
First, we must remember that God rarely warns the Gentile (i.e. pagan) nations. If we will read our Scriptures, we will find very few examples where the Lord sent specific warning to those outside His chosen people. ‘The Assyrian,’ Nebuchadnezzar and the people of Nineveh are a few of those who come to mind (interestingly enough, all three are directly connected to the Biblical use of flies and bees as warnings to His people). Most times, when the Lord sends a warning, it is to His people. This is significant in and of itself, but we’ll address that significance in a moment. Right now, we need to understand that the Lord’s use of flies and bees is almost always as a warning to His people.
So what sort of warning are flies and bees meant to convey? Well, that is what I tried to explain in my previous post on this subject. Flies are used in connection with Egypt, which Scripture uses as a symbol of atheism and bondage. Bees, on the other hand, are used in connection to Assyria, which Scripture uses as a symbol of judgment and destruction. We see these two symbols together in Isaiah’s warning to Israel (the Northern Tribes):
Isaiah 7:18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
18 In that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is in the [a]remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.
Now, the full extent of this warning is found in the greater part of this passage, Isaiah 7:17-25. In the full passage, Israel is told that the Lord would send for the flies of Egypt and bees of Assyria, and that they (the people of these lands) would come and settle in everywhere within Israel, and that these people would destroy the farmlands (i.e. economy) and the people would take up arms in response. It tells of an invasion that will make it so the people of Israel can survive, but just barely. The peace will be lost along with their security and prosperity. Now, here is why this is important to us today.
First, the people being brought into this nation today are all from the region of flies (Egypt) and bees (Assyria — Syria and Iraq). They are as godless and violent today as they were when the Lord used them to punish Israel. Therefore, the flies and bees we keep seeing around President Obama, and now Hillary Clinton, could be a warning of impending judgment upon this land. But that would depend on whether or not this country has any connection to God’s people. Unfortunately for us, and whether or not the majority chose to accept it or not, America is directly connected to God’s people. This country was founded by the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, the representative tribes of the Northern Kingdom. This means the Lord’s warning to the Northern Kingdom is being repeated in exactly the same way it was before Israel was destroyed and sent into exile the first time. What’s more, this is a second witness. The first, also out of Isaiah, was the prophecy of Isaiah 9 as it is connected to 9/11 and the stock market crash 7 years later.
Here’s what God’s people need to take away from this. First, this nation is connected to the Lord’s covenant people. We may not recognize this anymore, but the Lord has not forgotten. Second, the Lord is still speaking to us in exactly the same way He spoke to His people in the time of Isaiah, and He is sending us the exact same warnings for the exact same reasons — because we have turned away from Him and made ourselves into an adulteress, a harlot. Now, if the Lord said none would be spared the first time around — not even His faithful remnant — then on what grounds should the Lord’s people expect to be saved this time? Be very careful about listening to those voices preaching safety and prosperity right now. A believer has little reason to believe their voice is of the Lord, and a great deal of reason to believe it is not!
NOTE TO THOSE WHO THINK I AM ENDORSING TRUMP: you should read this post before making that assumption.
It is well-known that I oppose Donald trump. I believe he has the makings of a dictator, and I will not apologize for my opinion. It is based in the man’s own words. However, if anyone thinks this makes Hillary Clinton a better choice, that person is an enemy of the United States of America! Yes, you heard me correctly: if you support Hillary Clinton for President, you are an enemy of the United States of America!
Now, foolish people (Glenn Beck) may try to argue that we shouldn’t use such language because we all have to come together after the election. I disagree. There is absolutely no way for an honest person to defend Hillary. She is the most corrupt politician this country has had in my lifetime (I am 50), and very possibly the most corrupt we have ever had. The only reason she has not been jailed already is because the people who are responsible for prosecuting her are protecting their own involvement in her most recent crimes. But this does not change the fact that this woman is corrupt to the core.
If a person knows that a candidate is corrupt. That the candidate refused to send aid to Americans in danger. That the candidate then put an innocent American in jail to cover up the fact she refused to send help. If a person supports a candidate who knowingly and intentionally placed classified information in a position where this nation’s enemies would steal it. If a person supports a candidate they know to be running weapons to this nation’s enemies. If you support someone who cannot tell the truth, who is an open and unashamed hypocrite and who seeks to eliminate (not just destroy) her enemies. If you support such a person — a person who is clearly an enemy of this country — then you are knowingly and intentionally lending your support to them, thereby making yourself an enemy of the nation, as well.
Now, if the Apostle, John (whom Jesus loved) tells us that anyone who greets (welcomes/befriends/supports) an enemy of the Gospel, that person participates in their evil (2 John 7 — 11). Therefore, how can we be innocent if we greet/befriend/support someone who is at war with this nation? We can’t be and we aren’t. Furthermore, this applies to those who support Trump. Both candidates have confessed to being enemies of the ideal of America. Neither of them support the Constitution. Both have openly opposed it — many times. Therefore, supporting either candidate is to join with them in their attack on this nation and its laws. The only difference is that Trump has only said he will go to war with our Constitution, Hillary has repeatedly demonstrated that she already has, and has been since her youth.
As for Mr. Beck: I ask you, sir, how does one ‘come together’ with an enemy of one’s own nation? I understand the desire to heal the rift, but it is too late for that. All that can be done now is to remove the evil from among us. Now, both candidates have said things which would suggest they will both be happy to do that. I, on the other hand, would not. The removing and rebuilding is to be left to God, sir. But it is not for God’s people to join with evil. Scripture is very clear on this point: when God’s people join with evil, the Lord destroys them along with that evil — every time. It will be no different for those who join with lawless politicians. Lawlessness is lawlessness — period! And any who knowingly and willingly side with ilawlessness become lawless, themselves.
I’d like to share some things that have happened in my life and the lives of the people closest to me. It has happened in just the past few weeks and it shows how the Lord works. It shows how the Lord uses bad things for the good of those who believe in and trust Him, as well as how He answers prayers and directs our lives. For me, the events of the last few weeks have been a powerful affirmation of my faith. This is why I want to share it: to invite other believers to rejoice with me, and to show those who are still in the darkness exactly what the Light looks like and how it works.
This latest episode in my story started a few weeks ago. I was struggling to finish a major project in my own business when I was informed that I would have to make time to learn how to build my company’s new web site. In the past, I had always had others help me with this. I knew nothing about designing a web store, integrating a shopping cart, inputting all of my products and getting it all hosted. Nor did I have time for it as I was struggling to finish that major project. However, I had to do both or lose my company, so I did it. In less than a month, I figured out how to build my new web store and finished my project.
Now, as if that had not been enough, it was during this period that the Lord told me to start reading a book I have had for a while. I had started to read it several times before and, each time, I was told to put it away. But, in the middle of struggling to build my new web store and finish my project, the Lord told me to take up this book and start reading it. So I did, and it lead me to another book that I was also told to read. I’ll be sharing what I learned with you soon enough, but the point at hand was these two books prepared me to help several friends of mine who were struggling with a spiritual problem that, had I not read these two books beforehand, I might not have been of the right mind to help them when I was called to do so. The end result was, when it came time, I was mentally and emotionally prepared to do what was asked of me, and I did my part when I was asked.
Now, helping these friends involved a lot of people, including my wife and other members of my immediate family. The situation was both stressful and emotionally draining, but we all got through it. Now, keep in mind, I was still building my webs tore and finishing this major project while this was happening. And on top of this, I was praying to the Lord for guidance in a matter that has been before me for a while.
For some time now, I have felt that the Lord was calling me to a more purposeful service. I have been praying for His help in understanding what that might be, and I still don’t think He has given me the complete answer. However, no sooner had I gotten through helping my friends than I was asked to do something else that will take a great deal of my time. Several readers of this and my other blog have asked me to put large parts of my writing on several topics into pdf format so they can be preserved. Now, please understand, I am not complaining, and you’ll know that to be true in a moment. But I am my entire business. I am a one-man show, so anything that takes me away from my shop takes me away from my primary source of income. This is why I have been praying and begging the Lord for answers. What does He want me to do?
Well, last week, yet another reader contacted me to ask how he could help me make these pdf files a reality. You see, not only will it take time, but there is also a cost connected to it that, frankly, I couldn’t afford right now. It is not that I am unwilling to pay the cost, it is just that all the time that I was taking away from actually running my business had been costing me money and I simply didn’t have it. But this other reader offered to pay the start-up cost, and he has. So I have started working on the changes necessary to move The OYL to an independent hosting site so I can do the things I need to do but which cannot be done if I stay with Word Press. This is going to take time, time I do not have, but I am going to do it.
There is one last piece of this puzzle to share before I tie it all together for you. This morning, I went to mix a product I use in my business. It is rather costly, and, as I have said, my business is under some financial strain right now. As I was just about finished mixing this product, I realized that I had been shipped the wrong item. One of the products I was mixing was not correct, but I had already mixed it. This ruined the whole batch, and I simply did not have the money to replace it which, honestly, would have put me out of business. But I stayed calm and called my vendor, who had made this same mistake in the past, and I explained what had happened. The last time, I caught it before I mixed the materials. This time, I was in a hurry and I didn’t catch it. So I asked my supplier to help.
Now, while my supplier was asking their manager what they could do for me, I received an order on my web store. The order came in just minutes after I hung up with my supplier. I did not look at it, I just printed it and stuck it in my in folder. A half hour later, my supplier called back and offered me a solution. In the end, I agreed to pay 1/3 the cost of the mistake. I still did not know where to get the money, but it was better than having to pay the full cost. So I hung up and looked at the order that had come in earlier. It was for $1.50 more than what I had just agreed to pay!
Now, let me tie things together for you. In the past few weeks, the Lord has shown me that I can trust Him. He will get me ready for whatever task He has set before me (remember those two books?). He will answer my prayers and make provisions for whatever will be required to do what He asks me to do (remember my reader who paid to start the changes to this blog?). He will even take care of my company, thus taking care of me. You see, when I messed up the mixing of my product today, I literally made it so I cannot work until the 5th. It will take that long to get replacement product shipped to me and ready for use. So I was given 4-5 days to set up the new blog page. On top of that, I received an order for exactly the amount I had to pay to cover the mixing mistake. So the Lord has shown me that He does want me to serve Him and others by setting up the new blog, and that He will not only direct my actions, but provide the time and money necessary to support my efforts. And the whole time, I see that I am serving Him by helping others — through my business, through ministry to the people closest to me and through my efforts here on The OYL.
Now, I know other believers will rejoice with me over this because they will recognize God’s hand in it. But I hope others will see that there was too much here to be simple coincidence. There were too many ‘moving parts,’ and the timing was too ‘perfect’ for any of this to have been the result of random chance. This is how the Lord works and I had to share it. I just hope it helps others to feel firm in their faith or, better yet, come to faith for the first time.
It has been some time since I have written. This is because I am learning to write only when prompted, and then, to write only about those things I am told to write. Please understand, I do not consider myself to be a prophet. I do not hear predictions or prophecy of the future. However, since the prophets were also sent to warn, and a great deal of what I am told to write seems to be in the form of a warning, I suppose I may be a prophet of a sort. But I want you to know I do not see myself that way. I see myself as someone who simply wants to obey the Lord, which is why I have a warning for all Christians who are supporting Donald Trump. I pray you will listen.
The most common reason for Christian support for Trump is expressed in words to this effect:
“God used sinners, so He can use Trump.”
OK, if this is true, I have a question: why can’t God use Hillary Clinton the same way?
If God using sinners is a reason to support a man who is not only unrepentant, but boasts about his sin, then why doesn’t that same reasoning work with Hillary Clinton? The Truth is, if it works with Trump, it works equally well with Hillary Clinton. So, congratulations, Christian: you just argued for Christian support of Hillary Clinton!
OK, now that we have that out of the way, can we — as believers — get serious about this issue and start letting Scripture guide us?
First, understand that the angel told Daniel a beast is a world government. That definition has never changed, so there is no reason to believe the beast in Revelation is a person. Sound Biblical interpretation says the beast in Revelation is a government.
The next thing we need to understand is that, if we are looking to and trusting in government to set things right, then we are worshiping government and not Christ! (If you fall into this category, I strongly suggest you give some serious consideration to what this might mean in relation to the mark of the beast).
Scripture also tells us not to be un-equally yoked. In Truth, this means a believer should not join themselves to an no-believer. Respectfully, I submit that both Trump and Clinton have told us with their mouths and their deeds that they do not follow the Lord. Understand, I am not saying they do not believe in the Lord, I am saying they have said and done things that clearly demonstrate the Lord is not the Master of their lives. The question at hand for believers is: “Is the Lord the Master of our lives?”
If the Lord is the Master of our lives, then we are only charged with doing our best to live according to our best understanding of His Word. The outcome is for Him to decide, not us. We are to trust in and rely on Him, not government, not ourselves. This is what it means to let the Lord be the Master of our lives: we must surrender to Him and His plans, not ours.
Scripture is clear on this matter: believers are not to support those who are unrepentant in their sin. We are to show them the love of Christ by the way we live, but we are not to join ourselves to them. What the believer must understand is that your vote is an outward sign of support. Therefore, we must cast our vote accordingly and leave the result to the Lord. Scripture tells us not to fear, He can and will use all things for the good of those who trust and believe.
For example: as horrible as WW II was for the Jews, the Lord used that tragedy to bring Israel back into existence. If God can bring such light from such darkness, why should we doubt Him today? Why should we be trying to take things into our own hands by creating arguments for supporting someone who Scriptures clearly tell us we should stay as far away from as possible? By arguing such foolishness as “God uses sinners so support Trump,” a believer does little more than Abraham did when he tried to rush things by having a child with Hagar instead of waiting on the Lord to give him a son through Sarah. The result was not what Abraham intended, and Ishmael became and has remained a thorn in the side of believers ever since.
I’ll close with this. I am not telling anyone how to vote. That is not my business. However, I am warning those who profess to believe in Christ that they should not be tempting the Lord by twisting His Word to support their desires. If we believe, then we trust Him — not government, not even ourselves, but Him and Him alone. And if we trust Him, then all we have to do obey His Word as best we can and leave the result to Him. He is the Master, we are the servant. Trying to force His hand by acting against His teachings is rebellion, and Scripture is clear about how rebellion turns out. So why would any believer tempt the Lord by creating twisted reasons to support someone they should recognize as an opponent of God? How can a person claim to be a believer while making excuses for supporting the ungodly? It simply does not work, so chose wisely. As for me and my house, we chose to obey and trust in the Lord. I pray you will do the same.
Recently, I heard a very well known radio talk show host tell his audience not to worry about the meaning of words. It shocked me for two reasons. First, this host is well known for telling his audience that “Words mean things,” and then defending the meaning of the word or words in question. But what shocked me even more was the words in question this time were those words we use to describe the various political ideologies in America today. What’s more, this host not only told his audience not to listen to anyone who tries to explain what these terms mean and to just accept what he tells his audience they mean. Well, this has bothered me ever since I heard it — mostly because, after saying these things, this host then proceeded to give a false meaning for many of these terms. So I had to write to help any who might be interested understand what the terms mean and from whence they came.
First things first: I trust we can all agree that the person who invents or develops an idea is the one who defines that idea. By this I mean, if you invent something or develop an idea, then you are the ultimate authority on what that idea is and what it means. No one else has the authority to come along later and tell you that you are wrong, or to change your idea and then assert that they now control it. It is your idea and you alone define it — period. Well, the same applies to those men and women who developed the various political ideologies vying for influence in America today.
Now that we have this understanding — that the inventor defines — let us look first at the political ideologies that are all vying for control of the American people. Keep in mind, I have given generalized definitions which, when investigated, will reveal themselves to be accurate, but not exhaustive.:
In the United States, this would be our founding fathers.
This has nothing to do with the ‘Liberalism’ of today. This is why those who know and understand political ideology often refer to it as ‘Classic Liberalism.’ In simple terms, Liberalism is about the individual and individual rights and liberties. However, Liberalism also contains an inherent sense of personal responsibility and accountability not only to ourselves, but also to each other and to society. In other words, Liberalism acknowledges duty and accountability to others and to society. Hence, it is dependent upon a strong moral foundation.
In the United States, developed by Teddy Roosevelt, then co-opted by Woodrow Wilson.
This is an ideology that is difficult to explain. In short, it is based on the notion that man can use science to purposely control society and direct human evolution. hence the use of the term ‘progress’ in the name. However, in the United States, Woodrow Wilson clearly and forcefully explained that ‘Progressive’ was a term chosen to sell Communism to the American people. Thus, at least in America, ‘Progressive’ is synonymous with Communism. But, no matter where it is found, the spirit of Progressivism is the idea that man is his own god and, as such, can direct his own evolution/destiny.
Developed by Karl Marx.
In theory, Communism is a political ideology whereby society just naturally agrees on everything and runs itself by this collective conscience of agreement. However, this is an impossibility. While social in nature, man is not a collective organism. Even among collective creatures such as ants and bees, there is a queen. Thus, in practice, Communism is a derivation of the old system of the son king, or ruler as god. Only, in this case, government is the god. Under this system, the government owns and controls everything. Thus leaving those who would control society to fight over control of the government.
Developed and named by Benito Mussolini (whose symbol is that of community organizers today: a fascine, or bundle of small sticks into a larger stick with an axe head built in).
Also called corporatism by Mussolini, this is the primary competitor of Communism. Whereas in Communism the government owns and controls everything directly, Fascism allows for a cooperation between business and government where private ownership and operation is allowed, but only so long as it is operated in accordance with the will of those running the government. Otherwise, there is little difference between Communism and Fascism. Here again, the struggle is to be the one in charge of the State, and hence, the nation.
This one has many authors, but one of the most prominent would be Ayn Rand.
This terms is actually a term used to describe a wide range of ideologies which all hold one primary value in common: that of self-interest above all else. Thus, it is easier to explain what Libertarianism is not. Most important to understand is that Libertarianism is not Liberalism. While the Libertarian values the individual, and individual rights and liberties, there is seldom any sense of duty or responsibility to others or to society in the Libertarian ideal. In general, the Libertarian is all about themselves. Ayn Rand’s “Fountainhead” is the perfect illustration of the Libertarian ideal, as is “Atlas Shrugged.”
[NOTE: Rand’s ideology is called Objectivism, and is actually a mix of Liberalism and Libertarianism. Her ideology has influenced the Libertarian and American Conservative movement, although, the American Conservative movement has no real claim tot hat name.]
In the American tradition, developed by Edmund Burke.
Like Libertarianism, Conservatism is another ‘catch-all’ term. Contrary to modern assertion, Conservatism does not stand for any unique political ideology. Rather, it is all about holding on to what already is. In this sense, a Progressive who seeks to hold on to what they have gained is a Conservative. Likewise, so is a Communist who seeks to hold on to their power, and a Fascist. A better way to look at Conservatism would be as a traditionalist, or a ‘hold-what-you-have’ type of person. What Conservatism is not is a positive assertion of any particular political ideology or set of beliefs.
Here is where we have to be discerning. These are solid operational definitions for each of these ideologies. But there is a tendency to co-opt or steal the term of one ideology so as to cloak the agenda of another. For example:
Woodrow Wilson used the term ‘Progressive’ to represent his political agenda. He spoke in Progressive terms, talking about progress and science and the scientific administration of society. However, he was also very public in stating that he preferred Communism for America and that he chose to hide his true agenda behind the term ‘Progressive’ because he thought it would be the best way to get America to accept Communism. Thus, Wilson co-opted ‘Progressivism’ to hide his Communist agenda (and he said so in his own words).
Likewise, today, the American Conservative ‘claims’ to represent the ideology of America’s founding fathers. However, upon closer examination, one will discover that it doesn’t. It actually represents the ideology of Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive movement, which was Fascism by another name.
So, one must be aware of the constant attempt to take the name of one ideology and hide behind it so as to sell a secret agenda to the American people. This is done because, if the true nature of the hidden agenda were to be known, the American people would reject it. We can guard against falling into such traps by knowing what each term really means and then looking for its characteristic tells behind whatever term if being used. If someone starts the “America First’ Party and claims to stand for the individual, but then gets into power and starts to protect the State, or push a globalist agenda, you know you are dealing with Communism. If they get into power and push the State and nationalism, you are probably dealing with Fascism. And so forth.
The point is, just know what the people who developed these ideologies said they stand for and look for their tell-tale signs in whatever movement is courting your vote. This will not guarantee you will not be fooled by a deceiver, but it will make it much more difficult for the deceiver to fool you.