Republicans often take the high ground with abortion being one of the platforms they are against. So how come since Roe vs Wade, none of them have accomplished much? I think it is political and used to get the churches behind them. Once abortion is not an issue, the churches might look at what else they are doing wrong. So all you church people voting Republican, might take that into account. Democrats run on the platform it is a woman's body, and therefore a woman's choice whether to abort or not. That is pure unadulterated smelly stuff straight from the Devil himself. Let's be blunt. Straighten out the PR language a little here. It is a woman's choice to kill another human being because she was too stupid to use birth control or it didn't work and she is now humiliated by being pregnant. It is her right because it is her body. She has the right to kill a baby. Don't sound so good when it is said that way, does it? You women out there that have done this are guilty of murder. That plain enough for you? Great PR job on that though, Democrats!
Then there is the question of competence. I have had many pregnant women around me. During the first 4 months of a woman being pregnant, there is a whole bunch of things going on. For one thing, there is an entire metabolism change necessary to accommodate a baby. This includes all kinds of things. Hormones change. Emotions change. Some women go through depression, a lot do. Some drive their mates crazy. They are up one day and down the next. It is like nothing a male can ever imagine. Okay, let us say you are going to go through this incredible painful experience that will last anywhere from 4 to 24 hours or more. Everything about your body is changing so rapidly you cannot even keep track of it. Your stomach gets larger. You can gain anywhere from 40 to 80 pounds. In 4-5 months you have to bring a baby out of your body through a channel that is way too small for the head. What would you do, men?
Given all those circumstances, if the choice is there, would you abort? Would you murder a baby?
Yet 2 hours afterwards, most women are very happy to hold that same little monster in their arms, breast feed it, give it all their life and all their love.
The problem is nature gives us hormones that go crazy. It isn't just women. Men have crazy hormones too. But we are not faced with the battleground that becomes a woman having a baby. I think during that time, a lot of women are crazy. Not bad crazy, just overwhelmed with it all. It is no wonder so many opt to end the pregnancy with an abortion. I make the case they are not responsible. They are going through a literal kind of hell during those months. I maintain the entire human race is responsible to that baby to give it a decent chance during pregnancy and afterwards give it a chance at life.
A lot of people lose sight of this. A lot want to abort any baby because of circumstances involved in becoming pregnant like rape. I agree with one thing. The rapist needs to be punished. I think the baby needs a chance at life.
Here is what happened in one case. The woman kept the baby. It was adopted. Later she married. It was only then that they found out that the baby was the only one she would ever have due to a medical condition. So her entire family line would have died out if she had aborted the innocent child. She eventually located the child and helped raise it as an “aunt”. That is an exception not the rule.
The cases are all individual and need individual judgment. But not from a person so blinded by emotion and fear, they have no clear idea what they are really doing. And that is why the abortionists are in business. I feel no woman in her right mind would murder a child. But I don't have to go through 9 months of agony. I am male.
If you want clear evidence that rape is an emotional crime, there are over 200 men in this country that were convicted in a court of law by 12 jurists that were later discovered to be innocent because of DNA testing. Even then, the courts were reluctant to release them and compensate them for wrongful conviction. I think the number is much higher than that. They are still being discovered and rooted out of the jails. How would you like to be convicted of a crime you didn't commit, lose 10 years of your life in prison? Only to discover when you are innocent, the state doesn't take responsibility for their actions! That is what is happening. These people will be ex-cons the rest of their life even though they were innocent of any wrong doing. The state tries to bargain with them to release themselves from liability. That is so wrong in so many ways.
What convicted them? They looked like the person that did the rape. The prosecution disobeyed numerous laws and got away with it during the trial because of the emotional overtones of the crime.
No action has ever been taken against the prosecutors. Wonder why? I would have them disbarred.
They should be disbarred for not following the very laws that make their existence possible. Often people lose sight of one thing in a court of law. We are all human. We all make mistakes. It is not about winning or losing a case. It is about finding out the truth of what happened and keeping innocent people from going to jail. Our people that wrote the constitution came from such a corrupted legal system in Europe. It spanned many countries. So they wrote a set of rules that allowed guilty people to go free if there was any doubt as to their guilt. Zealous prosecutors have made a farce out of that set of game rules. For that they should be punished. I think a warning is adequate the first time. The second time they should be disbarred. If elected they should be impeached. They know they are doing something wrong and they are well aware that nothing will happen to them under the current system of courts.
I think abortion is wrong in all cases. But I take the side of the silent and innocent child. Everything else is fixable. Nothing we can ever do or attempt to do can ever fix a violated person. Only a good church, only a good Christian religious follower has ever beat the psychological damage of a rape. The rage, the anger of ruin, the assault is not fixable. The only thing that works for a violated person is to talk it out, release the anger, forgive and seek no revenge(and that is really difficult to do) and I know very few people able to do it, then heal and get on with living.
Anger in some cases is a good thing. Most times when you are done wrong, the victim pays the penalty as much as the person that violates that person. It is the same with divorce, rape, assault, and any number of other things. That anger smolders for years. It is corrupting. It will eat the victim alive.
That is one reason why Jesus said to forgive. It is not easy to do. Years afterwards a person will still have the anger deep within themselves. It takes everything we have to change that. And still when you are not looking, that anger will come back to haunt you. I suggest only Jesus can help someone in that situation. Prayer helps.
Was Barack Obama a pot smoker when he was in high school? According to a new biography about Obama, he was much more than that.
A new book by David Maraniss entitled "Barack Obama: The Story" makes some startling claims about Obama.
#1 A self-selected group of boys at Punahou School who loved basketball and good times called themselves the Choom Gang. Choom is a verb, meaning "to smoke marijuana."
#2 As a member of the Choom Gang, Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends. The first was called "TA," short for "total absorption." To place this in the physical and political context of another young man who would grow up to be president, TA was the antithesis of Bill Clinton's claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled.
#3 Along with TA, Barry popularized the concept of "roof hits": when they were chooming in the car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.
#4 When you were with Barry and his pals, if you exhaled precious pakalolo (Hawaiian slang for marijuana, meaning "numbing tobacco") instead of absorbing it fully into your lungs, you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around. "Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated," explained one member of the Choom Gang, Tom Topolinski, the Chinese-looking kid with a Polish name who answered to Topo.
#5 [Choom Gang member] Mark Bendix's Volkswagen bus, also known as the Choomwagon. … The other members considered Mark Bendix the glue, he was funny, creative, and uninhibited, with a penchant for Marvel Comics. He also had that VW bus and a house with a pool, a bong, and a Nerf basketball, all enticements for them to slip off midday for a few unauthorized hours of recreation...
As you can imagine, these revelations about Barack Obama being a pot smoker are making news all over the globe. The following is a Taiwanese animation about all of this that is extremely funny....
Is Newt Gingrich liberal? You better believe it. In fact, he has a long record of standing for just about everything that the Tea Party is supposed to be against. Newt Gingrich has long supported an individual mandate for health care, he supported the Wall Street bailouts, he supported the funding of Planned Parenthood, he did a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi and he has made tens of millions of dollars lobbying for liberal causes. In addition, he has a personal life which will make him unelectable when put up against Barack Obama in a general election. So what in the world are Republicans thinking? This is not the guy to hitch our wagon to. Are Republicans really going to nominate a guy who co-sponsored 418 bills with Nancy Pelosi? Newt Gingrich is so liberal that someone needs to tell him that he is in the wrong political party. Newt Gingrich is not just a RINO ("Republican In Name Only"). He is a progressive socialist and a consummate Washington insider. He represents everything that the Tea Party is supposed to be fighting to get out of Washington.
If you plan on voting for Newt Gingrich, please read the rest of the information below first.
The following are 10 reasons why Newt Gingrich is liberal....
#1 Newt Gingrich was promoting the principles of Obamacare before Obamacare was even invented. Republicans are supposed to be against Obamacare, and yet a huge percentage of them are supporting a candidate that was pushing an individual mandate way before Obamacare was ever even invented.
In June 2007, Gingrich made the following statement....
“Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.”
That doesn't sound very conservative.
Gingrich says that he will repeal Obamacare, but back in 2008 Gingrich wrote a book entitled "Real Change" in which he endorsed an individual health care mandate.
So should we believe what Gingrich is saying now or should we believe what he has been saying for nearly 20 years?
#2 Before he was running for president, he was running around the country with Al Sharpton promoting the socialist education policies of the Obama administration.
#3 Back in 2008 Gingrich actually did a television commercial with Nancy Pelosi in which he declared that "our country must take action to address climate change".
#4 Not only that, Gingrich also has promoted the idea of a "cap and trade" carbon trading scheme. Back in 2007, Gingrich said the following....
“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”
#5 While he was in Congress, Newt Gingrich co-sponsored 418 bills with Nancy Pelosi.
#6 As we have seen during the recent debates, Gingrich openly supports amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.
#7 In 2008 Newt Gingrich declared that he would have voted for the TARP bailout if he was still a member of Congress.
#9 Newt Gingrich is a big time Washington insider that is often paid huge sums of money for doing next to nothing. Gingrich has said that he was paid $300,000 for "work" that he did for Freddie Mac, but according to Bloomberg he actually earned somewhere between $1.6 million and $1.8 million between 1999 and 2008.
So what did he do for Freddie Mac? Gingrich claims that he warned Freddie Mac about the housing bubble, but the report by Bloomberg disputes this....
None of the former Freddie Mac officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Gingrich raised the issue of the housing bubble or was critical of Freddie Mac’s business model.
It turns out that much of the "work" that Gingrich was expected to do never actually got done....
Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.
He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.
#10 The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of "moral values", but they are getting ready to send someone to the White House that has a track record that would make Bill Clinton blush.
The following is how a recent Business Insider article described the "skeletons in the closet" from his personal life....
Newt's personal baggage is either weird or scary. He married his high-school geometry teacher. He cheated on her and divorced her while she had cancer. So he married Marianne Ginther six months later. But that wasn't to last.
Gingrich conducted a tawdry affair behind her back with one of his staffers while making political hay out of Clinton's affair with a White House intern. He then divorced Marianne and married the staffer.
How in the world can Republicans be supporting this guy?
For more on the personal life of Newt Gingrich, please check out this video.
We desperately need to educate Republicans about this guy while there is still time.
The following is from a recent opinion piece authored by U.S. Senator Rand Paul for The Des Moines Register....
Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supported the outrageous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailouts — “one of the most unpopular government programs in American history,” even according to President Obama’s own Treasury Department.
Both Romney and Gingrich have been outspoken and unapologetic supporters of the individual mandate. This is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.
Since the tea party started as a reaction to Republicans who voted for TARP, and was strengthened into a national political force during the fight over ObamaCare, I believe this disqualifies both Romney and Gingrich from tea party support.
But Paul was not finished there. He went on to list many more reasons why Gingrich is not qualified to lead the Republican Party....
Gingrich began his career as a Rockefeller Republican from the liberal wing of the party. And though he has often spoken and occasionally acted like he left that wing, it is clear from his flip-flops and multiple “apologies” that his heart is still there.
His record features “highlights” such as global warming commercials with Nancy Pelosi, support for cap-and-trade, funding Planned Parenthood, and, recently, announcing that life does not begin at conception.
Not only that, but Gingrich took money as a Freddie Mac lobbyist — one of the well-known government-backed agencies that served as a root cause of the financial meltdown of 2008.
While one candidate in the race, my father, Rep. Ron Paul, was publicly warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the crisis they were helping to create, Gingrich was earning millions to not only endorse but also promote the status quo.
One group of Gingrich’s also took in nearly $40 million promoting big-government ideas, such as the individual mandate.
His lobbying and promotion of the housing crisis and the health care mandate have helped to make him a wealthy man, but they have also put him outside the conservative mainstream on most issues.
In conclusion, Paul claimed that Gingrich is not even a conservative....
So I will conclude by saying two things: Gingrich is not from the tea party. He is not even a conservative.
He is part of the Washington establishment I was sent to fight. He has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day, and he has taken money from those who helped cause the housing crisis and create millions of foreclosures.
Rand Paul is right - the reality is that Newt Gingrich is a rabid liberal and no Republican should ever cast a single vote for him.
For much more on why you should not vote for Newt Gingrich, please watch the short video posted below....
Recently, I paid a visit to a local church to which I was invited by a co-worker. That co-worker, who has children in public schools, had had a number of discussions about public schools with me. One of those discussions led to my having written a letter which exposes a tiny sliver of the facts and information which, formerly taught in U. S. schools, are no longer taught in many of our “dumbed-down” “skools.” While speaking to one of the leaders of the church, I mentioned that parents and students should work to de-fuse some of the nonsense and harmful teachings in public schools. The leader swiftly rebuked me, cited Romans 13, and said that students in public schools need to learn to submit to school officials. (One of the pastors of the church has a son who is now the principal at the school to which I wrote the above-mentioned letter.)
Implied in this oft-pushed notion about Romans 13 is that the word, submit, involves, or connotes, staying quiet, and refraining from giving opinions about what the government does for, or with, or to, us.
I admit that I am still struggling with where Romans 13 draws the lines. I hope that my attempt to put my muses and research into words will help you who also struggle. Please bear with the “rabbit trails.”
Here is Roman 13:1, from the English Majority Text Version (EMTV) of the Bible. (Other Bible quotes herein are from the Authorized Version, unless otherwise noted.)
Let every soul submit to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God.
The Apostle Paul wrote Romans 13. Was Paul silent about how government dealt with him? Or is someone, somewhere, twisting the connotation of the verb, to submit, from the way that Paul saw its connotation? If someone is, indeed, twisting Romans 13 from its original intention, what is the motivation of that person, or that entity?
Paul was born a citizen of Rome. Being a citizen, Paul was not one of the conquered masses, with whom Rome dealt as it pleased (beating, torture, murder). According to Roman law, Paul had rights. Roman officials could not grab Paul off the street and beat him, unless he had been “condemned” (Acts 16:37; 22:25), or found guilty of a crime. [Peter was not a Roman citizen. Under Roman law, Peter could be beaten at the whim of the Jewish leaders (Acts 5:40), who were puppets of Rome.]
Paul was obligated to submit (or, to be subject—Rom. 13:1) to Rome. His own writings bound him to do so. But did Paul include silence about what Rome did to him as part of his obligation to be submissive to Rome, as the above-mentioned church leader seems to do, regarding public “school” students, in students' dealings with public “schools?”
In Acts 22, Paul delivered a speech which angered many Jews. The resulting commotion resulted in Paul having been dragged into custody by Roman officials. They decided to have Paul beaten, so that he would tell what he had said to stir up the crowd (verse 24). As Roman officials were preparing to beat Paul, Paul asked them, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?” (v. 25). Uh, oh…Paul didn’t “submit” to whatever the Romans wished to do with him. He dared to question them, as I urged, to that church leader, that students and parents should begin to do, regarding policies in place at public “schools.” Why didn’t Paul simply “submit,” and allow himself to be beaten?
Roman officials did beat Paul on another occasion (Acts 16:22, 23). The text does not reveal whether Paul was so quickly rushed to be beaten that he didn't have time to react, or whether he had a reason for having allowed Roman officials to beat him on that occasion.
Paul did not remain silent about the beating in Acts 16. Paul made certain that he did what he could to get those Roman officials to admit, in fashion, that, in having beaten Paul, they had made a mistake (vv. 37-39), and “they (those Roman officials) feared” (v. 38), because of the actions which Paul insisted that they take.
After another incident, a result of which Jews strove to stop Paul permanently, a Roman ruler, Festus, asked Paul whether Paul was willing, in defense of his actions, to stand before Jews in Jerusalem. Paul replied that he was standing before Caesar's judgement seat, and, as a result, he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11). Paul did not say to himself, “I need to submit to the Jewish rulers. They're doing God's bidding.” Paul could smell a kangaroo court from a million miles away. From what I can see, Paul’s connotation of the verb, to submit, did not always involve remaining silent and passive.
Can you imagine students, following Paul's example, respectfully standing up to “school” officials, and asking those officials why things which their grandparents were taught are no longer taught in schools? Didn't Paul give such students a “green light?” What is the alternative—for our children to remain ignorant into their adult years? Doesn't God lament ignorance in people? “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). By extension, do not our dumbed-down schools, in breaking the spirit, or intended purpose, of Hosea 4:6, break the law of God? What do you prefer? Do you choose “submission” to government-paid, government-sponsored “school” leaders, while breaking the law of God by keeping students (YOUR CHILDREN) in ignorance? Or, do you prefer keeping the law of God, and, in the name of wishing to increase dissemination of knowledge, respectfully challenging these people? If you discover that, indeed, there is a plan to “dumb-down” children in the U.S., would you formulate your own plan to remove your children from public schools?
As long as we send our children to public schools, we “enable” those whose fruits are substandard (planned or not). We keep public school employees comfortable with their disappointing results. And everyone (including churches) being quiet and “submissive” about this tragedy puts fuel on the fire burning our children out.
In advising students to “submit” to (or, to be quiet about) dumbing down procedures in schools, this particular church breaks a portion, or aspect, of the law of God. Are other churches such transgressors? If so, why do churches, in failure to observe the 1st Commandment, put the State ahead of the Creator?
I can't help comparing a failure to feed knowledge to our youth to a failure to feed food to them.
In addition to looking at some of Paul's examples, I wish to explore other Biblical examples of how those who have followed their Creator have dealt with governments which are in opposition to the Creator's ways, or in opposition to that government’s own written laws.
I strongly suggest that the reader look up a quote made by one Dr. Durell Tuberville, who is part of what are called “Clergy Response Teams” in the U.S. Regarding unconstitutional “emergency” actions by government operatives (such as the gun-grabbing in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina), Dr. Tuberville stated, “...the primary thing that we say to anybody is 'Let's go out there and get this thing over with, and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over'...because the government's established by the Lord...and that's what we believe in the Christian faith. It's what stated in the Scripture.”
If you were to ask some of these members of the Clergy Response Teams about the family, most of them would reply that the institution of the family is established by the Lord. If you were to ask them about the clergy, they would tell you that an organized clergy is established by the Lord.
So they admit that family, clergy, and government are all “established by 'the Lord.'”
Paul wrote about how to approach questioning an action of an “elder” of a church. He wrote, “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father” (I Timothy 5:1). Paul gave a green light to intreating, or questioning respectfully, a father.
In the book of Malachi, especially in second chapter, members of clergy (priests) are openly rebuked. In effect, Malachi told us that we can question clergy. Further, Luke, in the book of Acts, wrote that the Bereans were “more noble,” because “they...searched the scriptures daily, whether those things (which Paul taught) were so” (Acts 17:11). The Bereans were open to Paul's teachings, but they didn't swallow Paul's teachings without question. They did research.
Would these people in Clergy Response Teams say that parents should never be questioned, or that ministers should never be questioned? If so, they would teach against Scripture. In like manner, for Clergy Response Teams to help the government to do its dirt on a smooth, paved, unquestioning road of “submissive” citizens is not Scriptural. Why is it not Scriptural? Just as no human individual is perfect, so no nation—no collection of humans—is perfect. Any nation is thus subject to humble correction in love.
“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him” (Leviticus 19:17). For Clergy Response Teams to fail to publish errors made by the government in Washington amounts to hatred of Washington by the Clergy Response Teams, no matter how “cozy” the relationship between Clergy Response Teams and Washington seems to be. It further demonstrates hatred against citizens governed by Washington.
“Open rebuke is better than secret love” (Prov. 27:5).
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (v. 6).
In order to give myself a reason to think more highly of these Clergy Response Teams, I want to find an example of rebuke made, by Clergy Response Teams, against Washington. Sadly, from what I have found, Clergy Response Teams seem to be secretive. Here's an example. When a member of the Worldwide Church of God asked how many ministers in that church are part of the Clergy Response Teams (i.e., getting do-re-me from F.E.M.A.), that minister's response was, “Sorry, that is privileged information.” Why wasn't that church willing to admit (or deny) association with the Clergy Response Teams? Do we see members of Clergy Response Teams making themselves known at any other time, other than to help citizens to find acceptable yet another unconstitutional act by Washington? Why do they seemingly spend most of their time under rocks?
We need to call a spade a spade. The U.S. Constitution is the foundation of the law of the U.S. Any action done in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution is unlawful. If a “common” citizen goes against the Constitution (as in the act of treason), that citizen breaks the law. If a President goes against the Constitution, that President breaks the law. They break federal law, and not mere civil law. The gun-grabbing done in New Orleans broke the supreme federal law of the land. A preacher attempting to make unconstitutional actions seem holy or palatable or make them feel good neither makes those actions any less unconstitutional, nor does he make those actions lawful.
How, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, were “differences” between gun-grabbing government officials and citizens who hoped to be able to defend themselves settled, as Dr. Tuberville spoke of settling differences? That was easy. Government officials sent the National “Guard” in, and, at gunpoint, the National Guard, against the edicts of the U.S. Constitution, confiscated weapons. Did those citizens who had their guns stolen ever get those guns back? Who cares? The case was settled. (I hope that it hasn’t been settled.)
In an aside, isn't it easy to wonder whether uniformed people who break the precepts of the U.S. Constitution are working for another government, and are, as a result, treasonous? They don't follow the U.S. Constitution. What, or whom, do they follow? Are they part of YOUR government?
Dr. Tuberville makes no mention of Paul's having brought grievances to the government…why not? Why didn't Paul take that the beating which the government “established by the Lord” wished to inflict? Why didn't Paul get in contact with the Clergy Response Teams of his day? Why didn't Paul consult the Pharisee and Sadducee Clergy Response Team lackeys, who, in order to seize the scraps of power doled out by the Roman government, worked as a glove over the hand of Rome, as Rome's snitches? If Paul didn't consult the Clergy Response Teams of his day, should we take the advice of our Clergy Response Teams, today? Should they even exist, as they are?
We need to do research about the origins of Clergy Response Teams. They need exposure. They’re your tax dollars at work against you. We need to discover how much money has been diverted into the pockets of the members of the Clergy Response Teams.
Did other Biblical characters challenge the status quo?
Numbers 27 has the story of five women who, according to inheritance laws as they were, with property going from father to son, were not to receive any inheritance. (These women had no brothers.) Did those daughters say to themselves, “Romans 13 says we better shut up about any inheritance, because it's a man's world?” They went to Moses, who took the case of the women to the Creator of all. “And YAHWEH spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them” (Num. 27:6, 7).
Let's have a look at the story of the birth of Moses, and the degree of submissiveness exhibited by some of the players having to do with Moses' birth.
In Exodus 1 is the account of the Egyptian pharaoh having become concerned, because the Hebrew slaves had multiplied in number. At first, in order to contain their population, the pharaoh had the Hebrews forced to work as slaves. But the Hebrew slaves continued to increase their numbers. Finally (v. 16), the Hebrew midwives were told to allow female children to live, but to kill male babies.
The Hebrew midwives could have said, “We better submit, because whatever Pharaoh says is the will of God. The Clergy Response Teams say that we can settle the differences later, after those babies are killed.” Verse 17 tells the course of action of the midwives. “But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.”
Had the edict of that pharaoh been fully obeyed, Moses would not have been born. Hebrew midwives “feared God,” and, in doing so, disobeyed the pharaoh.
Residents of New Orleans faced armed government forces who broke the law of the land. Can't you extrapolate from trends that, in time, you, personally, will have your “The Creator vs. Pharaoh” moment? You will probably soon encounter man's orders which, if kept, would go against the will of the Creator, and not merely against man's law of the land. (Are we already facing that fork in the road, with increasing pressure to ban home-schooling, and to force private schools to become state-certified or accredited, and, in effect, forcing parents to keep their children ignorant?) Which would you do? Would you keep man's law in spite of going against the desire of the Creator, or would you “fear God,” as did the Hebrew midwives, and go against man's edicts? Would you, for instance, keep your child in a public school, though you know that you child could learn much more in a real school, though that school may be declared “illegal?” The Clergy Response Team's Dr. Tuberville does not mention the possibility that the U.S. government could go against the wishes of the Creator. Regardless of Dr. Tuberville's opinion, what will you do, when you encounter a law of man which, to observe it, would go against the Creator's way? What will you do, when you are offered a “mark” (Revelation 13:16, 17) which would pave the way for you being able to buy and sell under government approval, when acceptance of that mark also mandates that you worship a “beast” (v. 15)? I submit that, if you accept, in silence, having your children “educated” (brainwashed, and kept in ignorance) in a public “skool,” you soften yourself for any other government onslaught. “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much” (Luke 16:10—words of the Messiah). If you are unfaithful, in allowing, without challenge, public “education” to flourish, you may also cave in, when someone comes with a mark, to help you be able to buy and sell.
Regarding schools, I'll tell what I'd like to do. I'd like to find an “underground” school whose directors have no regard for state-sponsored teacher certification, and I'd like to be a teacher in such a school. I'd view such a school in a state in which such schools are deemed “illegal” similarly to how I view the actions of the Hebrew midwives. I'd seriously consider teaching in such an “illegal” school. Just as I am against killing newborn babies, I am also in extreme disfavor of intellectually starving children and youth. If blind government goons came to arrest me, I'd submit to their arrest. I would hope that my actions would speak loudly.
Jesus' parents did not “submit,” as Clergy Response Teams view submission. When Joseph and Mary learned that Herod wished to kill male babies two years old and under, they didn't say, “Romans 13 says that it's the will of God that we turn Jesus over to have him killed.” They got outta Dodge.
Are you beginning to wonder whether the word, submit, in Romans 13, carries a connotation of “be quiet, and do what you're told?” I hope so. Now, you need to discover what connotation the word, submit, in Romans 13, does carry. In addition to my ideas given below, I strongly suggest that you give a good, long, serious look at what Dr. Chuck Baldwin has to say about Romans 13. Dr. Baldwin has spent much more time with this subject than I have. Further, I suggest that you obtain or otherwise gain access to watching one of Pastor John Weaver’s sermons on the subject of Romans 13. (Pastor Weaver has also written a book along this line.) I may not agree with every last word of either Dr. Baldwin or Pastor Weaver, but I'm much farther down either of their roads than I am down Washington's road, and, at the very least, I believe that both Dr. Baldwin and Pastor Weaver make very good points to ponder. They are much closer to the “America” which was the land of the free; home of the brave, than is Washington, which is creating the land of the flea; home of the slave.
To understand Paul’s idea of submission, or of being “subject” to “higher powers,” we should look at the example of Paul’s Master—Yahshua HaMashiach—Jesus the Messiah.
When Judas led the group of scribes and elders to Jesus, in order to hand Jesus over to Roman authorities, the disciple Peter got in a good lick, by cutting off the ear of a servant (Malchus—John 18:10) of the high priest. Perhaps, with a couple more good licks, and with it having been in the dark of night, Jesus could have escaped. However, Jesus made himself subject, or submissive, to authorities (Isaiah 53:7). He said, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:52, 53). Jesus could have rounded up a sure escape from his predicament on the Mount of Olives. But he submitted.To Pilate, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).
Though Paul challenged policies of Roman authorities, ultimately, when Paul had run out of appeals, he did not fight the death sentence pronounced by Rome. I'm certain that Paul warned all involved in his execution that they would pay a price for their error. But he didn't try to round up an army to defend himself or to escape.
Unquestionably, Jesus had caustic words regarding the practices of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matthew 23). But, ultimately, submissively, when the “hour had come” (John 17:1)—when the Creator deemed time—Jesus relied on the Father's view of the Big Picture, and did not resist the group of Jewish leaders who had followed Judas to Jesus, and who witnessed Judas' kiss of betrayal.
In similar fashion, Daniel did not fight the death sentence handed down by Darius, who was tricked into paving the way for that sentence. Daniel went into the lions’ den, but was Protected from the lions (Dan. 6:4-22).
I believe that, in the creation, we can observe the submissive attitude, or the attitude of being subject (Romans 13:1). I once saw some documentary which showed the capture of wild geese, in order to “tag,” or “band” them. Explosive charges were placed to propel one edge of a large net over a flock of geese on the ground at the start of a day. (Of course, the opposite edge of the net was anchored.) As biologists ran over to grab geese, each goose tried to escape. However, curiously, once the geese were in the arms of workers, each goose settled down, and was very still and calm. That tendency of calming down when capture is certain must be “built in” (instinctive). I tried that, once, with one of a number of geese at a municipal park. One of the geese was close enough to me that I grabbed it. I dreaded a beating, and a lot of bites from that large bill. However, once the goose “knew” that it was captured, it calmed down, so that my daughter could stroke its feathers. Another example: a cat with a songbird in its mouth once approached me. I suppose that the cat was “bragging” about its ability to catch a bird. The bird seemed to have been killed, but, when the cat attempted to “meow,” the bird sensed that it had a chance to escape, and it quickly flew from the cat's mouth. The cat then gave out a very sad-sounding “meow,” and appeared startled and saddened. The complete submission of the songbird lulled the cat into overconfidence and lack of vigilance. The cat may also have assumed that the bird was dead.
When officials tried to beat Paul, he tried to escape, as did the geese, when the net trapped them. However, when it became evident to Paul that his time had come (as he grew to realize—II Timothy 4:6-8), he calmed down, as did the bird in the cat's mouth. According to tradition, Apostle John was immersed into a vat of boiling oil, possibly by the Roman Emperor Domitian. Apparently, John did not resist, but submitted. However, as Daniel escaped alive from the lions' den, John was unharmed by the oil. Had John tried to mount some kind of resistance, he may not have fared so well. John submitted, as did the bird in the cat’s mouth, and John fared at least as well as did that bird.
Even some tyrants find it more difficult to put a submissive, unarmed preacher of truth to death, than to rout and kill a small group of armed people with a vocal leader. Even tyrants are aware of image. For a tyrant to put to death an unarmed, vocal person to death could give the tyrant a bad image. So I believe that having a submissive attitude is not merely a show to others of being humble, but is also an intelligent approach. After all, the government does have superior “carnal” weaponry (II Corinthians 10:4). In the short run, they can win.
You who say or believe that a failure, on the part of followers of the Creator, to use weaponry against tyrants will result in the extinction of those followers of the Creator do not take into consideration the Creator’s vengeance used to topple a government, or a society, whose iniquity is “full.” You also do not take the resurrection into account (I Cor. 15). Those who do not take into account the resurrection are, of all people, most miserable (I Cor. 15:19).
Below, the Everliving One is speaking to Abraham about the timetable concerning when Abraham's descendants would take the “Promised Land.”
“And thou (Abraham) shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they (Abraham's descendants) shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full (Genesis 15:15, 16).
All societies have iniquity, because “all (individuals) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). But some societies (notably those with wealth, which results in “pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness”—Ezekiel 16:49) become engulfed by iniquity to a point that, according to the Creator, that iniquity in that society becomes “full,” as described in Genesis 15:16. When the iniquity of the Amorites became full, that government, and that society, was brought to an end (Numbers 21:21-31), and the Israelites under Moses took the land which the Amorites had occupied.
I don’t know how much more “full” it is that the iniquity in Washington can become. I do know that, if I embrace Washington’s iniquity, I will suffer Washington’s consequences. If I speak out against Washington’s iniquity, and do so with the right attitude (Ezekiel 9:4), I can’t lose. Either Washington listens and changes, as did Nineveh (Jonah 3:10), or Washington continues filling itself (and this land) with iniquity, and, when that iniquity is full, Washington and those who embrace it are toppled. In the meantime, Washington may come after me, and falsely brand me a “terrorist,” or an “enemy combatant.” If times become extremely hellish, I may be put to death. Paul said, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21). If Washington were to kill me, and if I'm under grace, I gain, and overseers in Washington heap more future woes on themselves. As Washington persecutes more and more saints, they hasten their ruin more and more. If Washington turns around, their collective sins can be put behind them (Ezekiel 18:21, 22).
The more saints any government persecutes and puts to death, the more quickly it is that that government has vengeance exacted, and is removed, in favor of a better one. And the way is cleared for better times.
Though leaders in Washington may not realize this, I do them a much greater service in warning them about their errors than I would if I enlisted in one of the branches of the armed forces, especially since I'm much too old to serve, anyway. In writing this article, I do more of a favor to my country than any “perfectly obedient” member of the Clergy Response Teams does, because “perfectly obedient” members of the Clergy Response Teams, as “yes men,” offer no opportunity for spiritual growth to our country, because they offer no rebuke or correction.
Here is something to ponder. King Sihon—the king of the Amorites—gathered his subjects together, so that they could keep the Israelites out of the land of the Amorites. (Note: Moses had sent envoys to the Amorites. The Israelite envoys had requested permission merely to pass through the land of the Amorites—vv. 21, 22. Not only did King Sihon refuse the courtesy which the Israelites had requested, but he also set out to do battle against the Israelites. The Israelites had no intention of harming anything to do with the Amorites.) As mentioned, according to Gen. 15:16, there would come a time when the iniquity of the Amorites would be full. When the Amorites attacked, “Israel smote (the Amorites) with the edge of the sword, and possessed (King Sihon's) land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon...” (Numbers 21:24). Did King Sihon suffer alone? No, anyone who fought with him also suffered, because those who fought with King Sihon were attempting to be “enablers” to a wicked king full of iniquity, and whose fall was imminent. And King Sihon—full of iniquity—reigned because the rest of the land was also full of iniquity. King Sihon and his subjects enabled each other to become full of iniquity.
Did King Sihon have his form of “Clergy Response Teams?” Did he get priests of the majority religion to help to find people to go to fight for the glory of Homeland Security? If so, they all fell, together.
If a country is full of iniquity, what will happen to a poor, deceived civilian who volunteers to be ready to fight in defense of that land full of iniquity?
Anyone who ponders joining any armed force should give careful thought to such a move.
Back in the late '90s, a U.S. soldier, Michael New, made headlines, because he refused to wear the U.N. armband on his sleeve. Mr. New said that he had signed the dotted line to defend the U.S.; not interests of other governments represented by the U.N. That courageous soldier was drummed out of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Rahab lived in Jericho. But she didn't support the defense of Jericho (Joshua 6). Did that make Rahab unpatriotic? Or did she hold citizenship of another country (Hebrews 11:16, 31, 40)?
For those who do not believe that Christians should vote, because Christians hold citizenship in heaven (Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 11:10, 14, 16), that we shouldn't mix with the world (II Cor. 6:17), and this is Satan's world (II Cor. 4:4), and his kingdoms, and that, for those reasons, we should roll over, and let the government do as it will, I can relate to you. I won’t tell you that, if you refrain from voting, you get what you deserve. However, I will tell you that Paul didn’t vote. The women who petitioned Moses about inheritance (Num. 27) didn’t vote. Esther didn’t vote her husband into office. However, they all petitioned their governments, in order to try to see that justice was done. Because petitioning the king of Persia was a life-endangering experience (Esther 4:11), Esther risked her life—twice (Esther 5:2; 8:4) in order to help to save her people. Even if you don’t believe that voting is part of what you need to do, you still are obligated to strive to see that justice is done. You have seen the examples of Paul and the daughters of Zelophehad.
Three groups of armed forces (50 men in each group) were sent, successively, from the Israelite King Ahaziah to arrest Elijah (II Kings 1:9), who was on top of a hill. When the first group arrived, the captain shouted to Elijah, “Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.”
Did Elijah say to himself, “Romans 13...I gotta do what the king says, because whatever he says is the Lord's will?” Elijah replied, “If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty” (v. 10). Fire devoured the captain and his 50 men.
The captain of the second group summoned Elijah to come down, in a tone very similar to that of the first captain. That captain and his 50 men were also incinerated.
The captain of the third group rode the learning curve. When he approached Elijah, he begged, “O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight. Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties: therefore let my life now be precious in thy sight” (vv. 13, 14).
Why didn't the third captain simply submit to the order of the king, do what he was told, and nab Elijah?
An angel told Elijah to go with (submit to the wishes of) the third captain and his armed force (v. 15). Elijah submitted, possibly because the captain was submissive to a Force infinitely greater than the force which can be mustered by a human king.
If you are already committed to serving an armed force, or a police department, which serves iniquity, you may be able to escape the fate of the majority of people in your force, or department, or society, as the above-mentioned captain escaped. That captain's wisdom also allowed his men to escape death. That captain may have put “right vs. wrong” in a higher position than the necessity to obey orders of men.
“We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Or, as the Bible in Basic English has it, “We have to do the orders of God, not of man.”
I doubt that pure fear was the sole driving force steering that captain. Though “the fearful” are destined for a lake of fire (Revelation 21:8), that captain escaped fire. Had pure fear driven that captain, I doubt that he would have been spared.
Had that captain been part of, or been listening to, a “Clergy Response Team” “because,” as Dr. Tuberville stated, “the government's established by the Lord...and that's what we believe in the Christian faith. It's what stated in the Scripture,” he'd have become toast, with no butter.
Read the story of the prophet Micaiah (I Kings 22). Contrast how Micaiah carried on with his government with how Clergy Response Teams interact “in bed” with Washington, today.
Rulers of Jerusalem during the time of Jeremiah accused Jeremiah of being unpatriotic; “Thou (Jeremiah) fallest away to the Chaldeans” (Jer. 37:13). Why Jeremiah was accused of having fallen away to the Chaldeans contains seeds for another article. Jeremiah would have washed out of today's Clergy Response Teams.
According to Jewish tradition (possibly the subject of Hebrews 11:37), the Jewish king Manasseh had the prophet Isaiah—another Clergy Response Team reject—sawed in half.
Please dig into this subject more deeply than does this article. The answers to how we should deal with government can be found between the pages of your Bible.
------------
The preceding was a guest post for Moral Decline by author Jimmie Parr.
In the United States today, moral relativism rules. Long ago, the nation as a whole rejected God's laws, and now everyone pretty much does what is right in his or her own eyes. People mostly make us the rules as they go along. In fact, this whole country is just kind of making up the rules as we go along at this point. What is "right" and what is "wrong" has become completely clouded. Our young people have no moral compass. But this is what happens when a nation rejects God.
The following are 18 very disturbing signs of moral relativism in America in 2011....
*It is estimated that approximately 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973.
*Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during its 2008-2009 fiscal year, according to the organization's annual report. That was up from $349.6 million in fiscal year 2007-08.
*The board of the American Conservative Union has approved a homosexual Republican group for a planning role in the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a major annual event in Washington, D.C., that draws conservatives from across the country.
*Fresh off of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” victory, Vice President Joe Biden said in a morning show interview that legislation approving gay marriage is inevitable.
*The Obama administration has declared that the field of synthetic biology poses only "limited risks" and should not be restricted.
*By unanimous consent in the Senate, Chai Feldblum, a lesbian law professor and the primary author of the pro-homosexual Employment Non-Discrimination Act, was recently confirmed as a member of the powerful Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which wields enormous power over the nation's employers.
*Nickelodeon’s new Illuminati-themed show House of Anubis, already airing in Belgium and Netherlands is due to air in the United States for the first time in January 2011.
*The Navy has opened an investigation into how a series of raunchy videos were produced and shown to the crew of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise while on deployment supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
*A Michigan man faces up to 5 years in prison for reading his wife's e-mail to find out if she was having an affair.
*CNN is reporting that an investigation has revealed that up to 5200 Pentagon employees may have been purchasing child pornography online.
*Victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted furiously to Pope Benedict’s claim yesterday that pedophilia wasn’t considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.
*Planned Parenthood's website has announced that the group is preparing to launch a nationwide “social change initiative” to end the “stigma and shame about sex” in American culture.
*A new survey has found that 54 percent of "evangelical Protestants" believe that people from religions other than Christianity can get into heaven.
*According to a new Gallup poll, seven in 10 Americans say religion as a whole is losing its influence on American life. This is a near-record high percentage since Gallup began asking the question more than 50 years ago.
What in the world is happening to America.
How long will it be before God starts pouring out his judgment upon this nation?
America has turned against God and every day there are more stories in the news that illustrate this sad reality. Thank you for visiting and please help us get the word out about this blog.
.
