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.
The new "enhanced pat-downs" being conducted by TSA officials at airports all across the United States are provoking a massive backlash by outraged citizens. Why? Well, because the truth is that these new enhanced pat-downs are little more than legalized groping. TSA officials are now required to feel air passengers up wit the fronts of their hands. During enhanced pat-downs the new guidelines instruct them to actually feel the outlines of the male and female genitalia. In addition, in many instances it is being reported that TSA officials are actually reaching down the pants of men and up the skirts of women during these enhanced pat-downs. Some TSA officials are performing enhanced pat-downs hundreds of times a day, and they do not put on clean gloves each time they perform an "examination".
Yes, this is really happening in the United States of America in 2010.
Things have gotten so bad that incoming chief deputy DA of San Mateo County, Steve Wagstaffe, has announced that he is sending deputies into San Francisco International Airport to investigate felony groping by TSA officials.
Prominent blogger Erin Chase is a regular air traveler, and she recently made headlines across the country when she described the groping that she experienced during one of these enhanced pat-downs....
She patted my left arm, my right arm, my upper back and my lower back. She then said, “I need to reach in and feel along the inside of your waistband.”
She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.
She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.
She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.
She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area or my labia.
So how did Erin feel after receiving an enhanced pat-down? She was horrified beyond belief...
I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official. I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking.
Here is why I was sexually assaulted. She never told me the new body search policy. She never told me that she was going to touch my private parts. She never told me when or where she was going to touch me. She did not inform me that a private screening was available. She did not inform me of my rights that were a part of these new enhanced patdown procedures.
Is this what America has come to?
This is yet another sign of how far our moral decline and our moral collapse has advanced.
Now countless Americans will be publicly groped and fondled every day at airports across the United States.
Of course you know who is going to run out and apply for these jobs, right? It is going to be pedophiles, perverts and sickos.
If you have any doubt that the TSA is totally out of control, just check out the following video....
So how much more of this will the American people put up with?
We are rapidly being turned into an anti-American Big Brother police state.
President Barack Obama has signed into law the 5.7 billion dollar national service bill. This bill dramatically expands national service, but it also places extreme restrictions on those who want to serve.
"National service" sounds great until you realize exactly what is in this bill. The House version of this bill includes a provision that bans all national service participants from being involved in any form of evangelism.
The final version of this bill prohibits national service participants from engaging in the following:
Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
So the U.S. government plans to create a massive horde of young people who are serving the United States but who will be banned from serving the Lord Jesus Christ and from sharing the gospel with their friends.
Talk about the secularization of American society - a bill which seeks to get countless thousands of young Americans involved in "national service" and which will prohibit them from serving God.
What kind of insanity is this?
The truth is that the economy is a mess, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and in several other covert locations have stretched the U.S. military beyond the breaking point, and many American cities need to be rebuilt. So now the Obama administration plans to use the cheap, conscripted labor of young people to get things fixed.
It's called involuntary servitude.
But this is what some in the Obama administration have been eyeing for quite some time.
Barack Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is the coauthor of a book that calls for, among other things, compulsory national service for all Americans between the ages of 18 to 25.
The following quotes are from pages 61-62 of the book Emanuel coauthored in 2006 entitled "The Plan: Big Ideas for America":
It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...
Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.
Now keep in mind that the person who wrote that is going to be the new White House chief of staff.
Wow.
The frightening thing is that it looks like some of Emanuel's ideas are already being implemented by the new administration.
The official website of President-Elect Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would soon "require" that all students in middle school all the way through college would be forced to participate in community service programs.
Fortunately, the Internet exploded with outrage, and the website's wording was quickly softened.
But before the change, this is what Obama's website said about this program: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
I think that we have had enough of "Patriot acts" and I know that most young Americans do not want to be part of any kind of a draft.
How many of you would willingly submit to mandatory national service?
What would YOU do if you got drafted into the U.S. military?
The U.S. government is taking more control over our lives than ever before, and still most Americans seem like they could care less.
How far has America gone down the tubes when the government is passing laws that ban young volunteers from sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ?
A new pamphlet by the U.K. government is instructing parents to avoid any reference to morality when talking to them about sex. Rather, the pamphlet directs parents that any sex talks should be kept “light” to encourage teenagers to form their own views.
The pamphlet is named "Talking to Your Teenager About Sex and Relationships", and it will be distributed in pharmacies in the U.K. starting next month.
The following is one line from the new pamphlet.....
“Remember, though, that trying to convince them of what’s right and wrong may discourage them from being open.”
So should we teach our teens the difference between right and wrong?
Where has a generation of amoral sex education gotten us?
*For American teen girls who acknowledged being sexually active, the rate of infection is 40%.
*According to a study by the Health Department of New York City, 26 percent of all residents of New York City have herpes.
*In another new federal survey, more than 50 percent of both male and female 15 to 19 year old teenagers admit to having engaged in oral sex.
But some of the most shocking statistics come from a survey of American teen girls that Tyra Banks conducted.
More than 10,000 teenage girls and young women took part in an anonymous survey last summer on the website of "The Tyra Banks Show", and the results were absolutely shocking:
*On average, girls are losing their virginity at 15 years of age.
*14 percent of teens who are having sex say they’re doing it at school.
*52 percent of the respondents say they do not use protection when having sex.
*One in three says she fears having a sexually transmitted disease.
*24 percent of respondents with STDs say they still have unprotected sex.
*One in five girls says she wants to be a teen mom.
*One out of three respondents admits to having tried drugs.
So why is this happening?
This is what happens when a nation rejects God.
The only hope for you and your family is Yahshua (Jesus) the Son of the Living God.
This world does not have a bright future for you. But through the Messiah you can find forgiveness of sins, eternal life and more love and purpose than you could possibly imagine.....
We wanted to put up a picture of what these "body scans" look like, but we were hesitant because they actually do border on pornography. These body scans are the closest thing to viewing a person's naked body without actually seeing their skin.
But all in the name of "security", eh? Now to board a plane you have to subject yourself to having one or more "security" guards view the virtually naked form of your body.
Tulsa International Airport is just the first airport where these body scanners will be tested.
San Francisco, Las Vegas, Miami, Albuquerque and Salt Lake City will join the body scanning test in the next two months.
Are you as disturbed by this as we are? If so, please feel free to leave a comment.
A new law that requires that all children's clothing be tested for lead and phthalates prior to being sold will go into effect February 10th. That means that the sale of used kids clothes on Ebay, Craigslist, thrift stores and even yard sales will be SHUT DOWN.
Some groups had been hoping that this law would only apply to children's clothing manufactured after February 10th, but according to the Los Angeles Times, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's general counsel has made a determination that this new law applies to everyone retroactively.
Ouch!
There is a huge segment of the American population that makes all or part of their living off of the sale of used merchandise. In trying to "protect children" from lead, the federal government is going to shut a lot of those people down.
The new law is called the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act", and it was pushed through Congress after lead was discovered in so many children's products (particularly from China) the past few years.
So if you plan to sell ANY products for children under 12 after February 10th, even if they are used, and you have not had them go through the federally mandated testing then you are breaking the law.
So what will happen to all of that perfectly good children's clothing?
Shauna Sloan, the founder of Kid to Kid, which has sold used children's clothing in 75 stores across the United States for years had this sobering statement about the new law: "We will have to lock our doors and file for bankruptcy."
So will we all be forced to only shop for children's clothing and products at the mega retail chains that can afford this very expensive government testing?
What about the grandmother who wants to knit a few sweaters for children and sell them at the county fair?
Will men with guns start showing up at thrift stores and yard sales across the United States?
The following is a news report on the impact that this new law is having on some toy sellers.....
What happens when the governments of the U.K. and the U.S. actively promote children to be "eco-police" who are urged to spy on their parents and to pester them to conform to environmentally friendly ways?
Surely that must be a plot from some bizarre science fiction film, right?
Wrong.
It is actually happening, and you can read all about it right here:
Children are actually being recruited to spy on their parents and to correct them when they do things that are harmful to the environment.
What in the world is happening to us?
In what bizarre universe do the children become the authorities and the parents that ones that need to be spied upon?
It is not just the environment that western governments are recruiting children for, however.
The U.S. State Department has actually announced plans to promote "online youth groups" as a new and powerful way to fight crime, political oppression and terrorism.
In addition, the new White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, wrote a book called "The Plan" in 2006. On pages 60 to 65 of that book, Emanuel calls for universal conscription of 18-24 year olds for civilian service in order to prepare for a potential terrorist attack.
It certainly looks like government is developing increasingly ambitious plans for your children.
Is the ballooning population of planet earth a huge threat to the environment? Do we need to implement strict population controls for the good of mankind?
The reality is that the world has more people than it ever has before. Some countries have implemented population laws that are quite strict (such as China's one child policy), while other nations do not have any population regulations. Lately, however, we have started to see some population control measures begin to pop up in the Western world.....
*In the U.K., one influential think tank says that it is an "eco-crime" to have too many children and that we really need to examine the impact our large population is having on the earth.
The desire by the global elite to limit the population of the earth has been around for a long time. Between 1798-1826, English economist Thomas Malthus published six editions of his work entitled "Essay on the Principle of Population", which argued that population growth inevitably outstrips food production.
The primary argument advanced by Malthus was that the English working class was poor not because they were exploited, but rather because there were too many of them. Malthus opposed welfare and higher wages because he believed they would allow the poor to survive and breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem and leading to more poverty. Of course Malthus was terribly wrong about all of this, but nonetheless his theories gained wide acceptance among the English elite of his day.
Many years later, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vigorously promoted this type of thinking in the United States. The following is one of Margaret Sanger's most famous quotes:
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Unfortunately, the theories of Malthus, Sanger and other population control advocates did not die. Rather, they seemed to gain steam as the population of the world exploded in the 20th century.
U.S. environmentalist Paul Erlich, in his 1968 book entitled "The Population Bomb", argued for strict population control measures, especially in the poorer areas of the world, or else we would face huge problems.
Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, said this in 1984:
"Malthus has been vindicated, reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village."
Unfortunately, the philosophy of Erlich, Schiotz and others has been adopted by many elements of the United States government:
“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."
“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…."
“The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”
–Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs
The quotes above are typical of the mindset of the global elite. The call for radical population control has grown louder than ever before. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the planet. Ted Turner said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," and the global elite applauded him for it. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are increasingly cited by our leaders as an important, and perhaps even necessary, goal.
What is happening to our world?
It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda:
Population reduction.
Problem #1: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".
Problem #2: Medical costs are soaring out of control.
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.
Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis":
The following is one of Prince Philip's most famous quotes about world population:
"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species."
Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior", also once said that he would like to come back to earth as a disease after he died to help reduce the human population.
But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from a myriad of other sources:
John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London has said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."
He has also stated this: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
Now there are influential think tanks in the United Kingdom that are even advocating that the U.K. adopt a "2 child" policy to help fight "global warming".
The Club of Rome certainly is clear who they think the enemy is.....
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991
Mikhail Gorbachev made the following shocking statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
The reality is that we are getting increasingly closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated". Is this the kind of future that we want for us and our children?
The truth is that the world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While the earth's population is growing, the rate of growth is definitely slowing. The population of the world grew by 140% between 1950 and 2000. However, authorities predict a rise of only 50% between 2000 and 2050, and a rise of just 11% in the 50 years after that.
The truly frightening thing is that many of you who are reading this article actually agree with this radical depopulation agenda. For those of you who do believe in such insanity, we would love to hear your rationale. Feel free to post a comment to this article below.
The following are seven humorous scenarios that show how dramatically American schools have changed from 1958 to 2008.
Scenario 1:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1958
-In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2008
- Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
Scenario 2:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them i n a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1958
- Ants die.
2008
- BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario 3:
Pedro fails high school English.
1958
- Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2008
- Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario 4:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1958
-Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2008
- Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario 5:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1958
- Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2008
- Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
Scenario 6:
Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1958
- Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2008
- Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 7:
Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1958
- Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2008
- Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.
NaturalNews is reporting that a California appeals court has ruled that the homeschooling of children in California is illegal unless the parents have teaching credentials from that state.
"California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home," explained Michael Smith, the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.
You can find out more about this shocking development at Natural News:
"In time you won't have to carry a plastic credit card around with you if you don't want to, although some people will chose to for nostalgic reasons," Barclaycard Chief Executive Officer Antony Jenkins stated recently.
This is just another small step towards the day when everyone in society will be forced to get chipped.
The reality is the the use of RFID chips is becoming commonplace in America:
Will you willingly take the chip when they come for you?
Will you resist the Mark of the Beast no matter what the consequences might be for you and your family?
It may be really easy to resist the chip when they introduce it on a voluntary basis at first.
But will you resist the chip when you cannot have a bank account without it?
Will you resist when you cannot buy or sell anything without it?
What will you do?
Where will you live?
How will you buy food for you and your family?
Will you resist when they start putting people without the chip in camps?
Will you resist when they start waterboarding you?
What about when they threaten to put a nail through your eye?
What about when they put you in a cramped, windowless cell and they turn out all the lights and they let dozens and dozens of hungry rats in?
What about when they start torturing your children right in front of you?
Will you still resist even then?
Will you still resist when they threaten to burn all of your skin off with acid and then throw you into a blazing fire?
Is it worth it for you to resist?
Why not just make things easy on yourself and take the chip and then you can stay in your house and buy and sell and you can go to work and live normally and the new world order will get of your back?
Will you have the power to resist when the time comes?
There are some who will have the power to resist.
Only those who have Jesus Christ will have the power to resist when that day comes. We urge you to find Him today:
“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."
“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…."
“The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”
–Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs
The quotes above are typical of the mindset of the global elite. The call for depopulating the earth has grown louder than ever before. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the earth. Ted Turner stated "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal", and the global elite applauded him for it. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are increasingly cited by our leaders as an important, even necessary, goal.
What is our world becoming?
It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda:
Population reduction.
Problem: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".
Problem: Medical costs are increasing.
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.
Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis":
Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior", also once said that he would like to come back to earth as a disease after he died to help reduce the human population.
But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from a myriad of sources:
John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning at University College London has said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."
He has also stated: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
Now there are think tanks in the United Kingdom that are even advocating that the U.K. adopt a "2 child" policy to help fight "global warming".
Mikhail Gorbachev made this shocking statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
The reality is that we are getting closer and closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated". Is this the kind of future that we want for our children?
The really frightening thing is that many of you who are reading this article will agree with this radical depopulation agenda. For those of you who do believe this, we would love to hear your rationale. Feel free to post a comment to this article below.
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.
.
