Biblical Government

An Open Letter to my Military Apologist Friends

2011-04-28T07:43:00.001-06:00

I have heard all of the arguments 100 times, at least. We need to fight them over there or we’ll end up fighting them over here. The government knows things that we don’t and it doesn’t tell us everything. The Muslims hate us for our freedom, or they hate us and want to kill us because that is what the Koran tells them to do. Congress ‘authorized’ military action in Iraq, so it was okay, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Ultimately, these arguments all hinge on the last argument- Congress gave the President authority to go to war, so it must be okay. How long will we allow ourselves to be subject to the control of the thought controllers? Let’s consider this same argument used in the real world setting, and let me know if you think it still applies.

Scene 1: A beautiful young lady is strolling down the street and I comment on how lovely she looks. You authorize me to have sex with this young lady. I do so and get charged with numerous crimes such as: rape, kidnapping, holding her against her will, etc. The Lord also charges me with adultery and fornication.

Scene 2: I need some transportation to get you to the hospital, or a joy ride, or the liquor store, or some other noble purpose. You authorize me to use a sports car that happens to parked close by. I take it and get charged with grand theft auto, at least.

Scene 3: I’m homeless and need a place to live. You authorize me to move into a certain house and to evict its occupants; by force if necessary. I do so and get charged with too many crimes to list.

The question I have for you, my military apologist friend is: why am I being charged with crimes when I have done nothing more than what you have given me the authority to do?

Of course, as you readily recognize, the problem is that you did not have the authority in the first place, therefore, you were not able to delegate that authority to me.

Now, my friend, if you are unable to delegate authority which you do not possess, what makes you think that Congress is any different?

“But,” you say, “the Constitution gives them the authority to declare war.”

Yes, it does. However, war was not declared, neither does the Constitution give them the authority to abdicate any of their responsibilities. Indeed, the Constitution was designed specifically to prevent any one person or any one branch from ever acquiring too much authority and power. So, just as you cannot give me authority that you never rightfully had, neither can Congress. And, just as you may not have committed any crime by giving me this authority, you are considered an accessory to the crime if you participated or if you had good reason to believe that I would act upon your authorization. The same is true of Congress; they are guilty if they in any way participated in the crime committed or if they had reason to believe that the President would act upon their authorization.

What about the president, is he guilty of any wrong doing? Well, just as I would have been arrested and charged with crimes for acting in any of the above scenarios, so should he. A President who commits a crime against his own country commits the crime of treason. When the President chooses to act upon what he knows, or has reason to suspect is an illegitimate authority, then he becomes guilty, just as I would be held accountable in our illustrations.

However, the President cannot actually act on this authority, so called, without the aid and assistance of a gang of armed mercenaries who will unquestioningly do as they are told. I know, my friend, you don’t like the terms gang and mercenaries when used in reference to our military, but let’s call them what they are. A military comes to the defense of its nation when under attack. A gang attacks ‘preemptively’ to set an example and to increase the size of its turf. A military holds its leaders accountable to the oath they swore to God Almighty, since the military has sworn the same oath. A gang does whatever they are told with no thought to right or wrong. A military upholds justice by strictly adhering to the rule of law. A gang perverts justice by arbitrarily declaring their own law. A military allows anyone who doesn’t want to participate to leave, at any time. A gang only allows one to leave upon the decree of the leader.

A military acts only when necessary for the repelling of foreign invaders. Mercenaries make a career out of killing and occupying. A military works to ensure that, as much as possible, only enemies get killed. Mercenaries kill with impunity, caring not whether innocent civilians die. A military takes no joy in killing. Mercenaries kill with sadistic glee.

I know that many of my military apologist friends will attempt to justify or explain away all of the issues raised. My hope in writing this is that one of you is spurred to actually think for yourself and to shun blind obedience. Remember, during the Nuremburg trials it was declared that the defense of “just following orders” was not a defense. That individuals had the right as well as the duty to disobey orders when they went against God’s law.

American Idol

2009-02-20T05:28:00.001-07:00

During a discussion I was having one time with a prominent Christian businessman who also happens to be a pastor, I was told that freedom is the “American Idol”. As is the case with many other Christians, it is my desire to eliminate all idols from my life. My family has stopped participating in the Christmas tree ritual because of the clear mandate in Jeremiah 10. We have removed all outside connection to the outer world through our television and only use it to watch occasional videos or movies in line with the 1st Commandment. We have removed our children from programs where our childfren are required to recite the pledge of allegiance in accordance with the 2nd Commandment. All this, and more, have we done in an effort to remove the pagan influence in our lives and to serve the one, true God. As such, I felt it necessary to carefully examine this charge that freedom is an idol.
True, many spend the majority of their waking time focused on freedom. True also, that many are spending countless hours fighting for freedom, whether that is on a battlefield somewhere or in the courthouse. True too, that many would be willing to lay down their life for the concept of freedom. Does this much devotion, time and energy qualify this concept as an idol? It certainly could!
Of course, one objection to this charge is that our founding fathers fought so vigorously for freedom, and that without their sacrifice, we never would have had freedom in the first place. While this may be true, the founding fathers could have been wrong. What if they were misguided and misled about God’s purpose and plan? Would that then make it right for us to strive for the same things they strove for? The obvious answer here is, “Of course not!”
Interestingly enough, my son is researching a geography fair report on Puerto Rico. In his studies on this beautiful island, he came across a very interesting little historical piece. When the Spaniards first landed on Puerto Rico, just as was true in many other instances, they were thought to be gods. Of course, the good ‘christian’ Spaniards did nothing to assure their new friends that this was far from the truth. Instead, they capitalized on this worship by enslaving those whose lands they were on while they proceeded to rape and pillage not just the land, but the populace.
After a period of years of serving their Spanish gods unquestioningly, one group of Puerto Ricans finally had enough and came up with an ingenious plan. While leading one of their god-like leaders through the local terrain, they risked their very lives and the lives of their families by drowning the Spanish slave master. This drowning was not done out of meanness or any desire to torture a fellow man, instead it was a daring attempt to find out if this really was a god who was immortal. You see, if this man truly were a god, then he would come back to life and all of those involved in the drowning, as well as their families most likely, would be killed as punishment for such an act. If, however, this man were not a god, then these natives understood that they would no longer need to blindly serve, but could rather fight them for their freedom.
After watching the Spaniard for three days to see if he would be resurrected, the natives headed back to their village and made the shocking announcement that these captors and masters of theirs were not gods, and were not immortal. Upon receiving this news, the natives rose up and began to fight the Spaniards in a feeble attempt to win their freedom. Had they not waited the three years or so that they did, they may have been successful, as it was they failed.
This got me to wondering, would God have placed in man such a strong desire for freedom if freedom was not something that he desired for us to have? He placed in us a desire for relationship and companionship because he desired those things for us and from us. He placed in us a need for love and respect, work, communication, and so many other things that are clearly a gift and a blessing from our Creator. Since this desire for freedom is so strong, could it also be a gift from above, or is it just some delusion that comes to us from the enemy? Naturally, the answer must come from God’s word if it is to have any merit.
The first account of God giving his people freedom is, interestingly enough, found in the book of Genesis in the 2nd chapter. God, desiring willful devotion from his creation, gave man the freedom to choose between being obedient by leaving alone the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the choice to eat and be aware of sin. If freedom were just an idol, God would not have been the one to ordain freedom and would not have offered it to his creation.
Further in scripture, we find that God’s people were captive slaves in the land of Egypt. While God’s children hated the oppression and abuse that went with such a lowly estate, they were content to remain in such a state of comfortable captivity rather than chance some new and, possibly, uncomfortable environment. This mentality coming from his own people was not acceptable to God, so he ordained Moses to rile up both his people and the captor, Pharaoh, and lead them to the promise of true freedom.
We can see that God’s people were exceptionally resistant to the idea of freedom, thus costing them 40 years of misery wandering in and through a desert and, ultimately, cost them their lives as God refused to allow that kind of poisoned thinking to live on and negatively impact the worldview of the next and future generations.
As a result of their experience in Egypt, or maybe more accurately as a reminder of God’s plan for his children’s freedom, God provides a provision for freedom in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 15. In this statute that God expounds, he gives the command that none of his people should ever serve another for longer than a period of 7 years, and that at the end of this time, the servant must be sent out with enough money and goods to make his own way. In this way, God was assuring his people that they would never have to live again in permanent bondage.
While there are many other scriptures that I may address in future essays regarding God’s desire for his children to have freedom on this earth, these suffice to illustrate that freedom, rather than being the ‘American Idol’ is rather the ‘Godly Ideal’. We can also see, as is evidenced by this pastor with whom I had this discussion and many other prominent ‘christian’ leaders in America, that God’s people have not changed much in the last 4000 years. We still prefer comfortable servitude to the discomfort associated with being free and having to accept personal responsibility for ourselves and our own actions. The latter of which I believe is the true issue at hand.

The Beginning of Knowledge

2008-11-05T10:01:00.001-07:00

I know the election has passed, and that the anointed of the “Christian Right” has gone down in defeat. And, while this may not seem timely, I feel that a study of God’s Word is always timely. Should the Christians in America have been supporting John McCain, and should they now be weeping and gnashing their teeth because he lost? Let us look to the wonderful book of Proverbs for the answer.
Proverbs 1:7 says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” I hate to make rash judegment calls, but I fear that the majority of those Christians who supported John McCain during this election are those who despise wisdom and instruction. I suspect that the number of times that this e-mail is forwarded will be strictly limited because of this very foolishness. Nevertheless, I will not be silent. I will share God’s wisdom and instruction, even with those who despise it.
These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren. Proverbs 6: 16-19
A proud look. God hates a proud look. He doesn’t say it isn’t nice, we shouldn’t do it. He hates it! God hates a proud look! Now, anyone who watched John McCain in a debate with Ron Paul saw, unmistakeably, the proud look. It was also present in his RNC speech, in his debates with Barack Obama, and in his commercials. But, if you were unable to see it in any of the latter appearances, you need only get on YouTube to see it in the debates with Ron Paul. God hates it, and so should you.
A lying tongue. God hates a lying tongue as well. Does anyone believe that John McCain has been honest and forthright throughout this election, or throughout his career? Watch the YouTube video “The Real John McCain” if you believe he has. It shows many of the times when John McCain switched his story according to his audience or the times. Folks, truth never changes! Let me say that again, truth NEVER changes. If you don’t believe everything you see on YouTube, just check his voting record. You will find no consistency there. More specifically, the only consistency you will find there is with his desire to implement liberty snatching, God hating legislation on us, his subjects. If you believe John McCain is honest, why not ask his first wife what she experienced. He vowed a vow to her that he would remain faithful and true to her forever, in sickness and in health. He was held captive in Vietnam for 5 years which she remained faithful through. During that time period, she got in a horrible car accident that left her permanently crippled and disfigured. When John McCain returned home, he saw her and quickly left her for someone beautiful. God hates a lying tongue, and so should you.
Hands that shed innocent blood. God hates hands that shed innocent blood. Now, contrary to what many Christians have been taught from the pulpit, unborn babies are not the only form of innocent blood. By innocent here, God is not referring to those who have never sinned. No, he is referring to those who have not committed a crime worthy of death. Now tell me, when John McCain was dropping bombs on small villages, schools and hospitals in Vietnam, were the men, women and children killed all guilty people? How about all of the over one million Iraqis who have been killed by us since 2003, whom he supports killing? Are the 10 year old girls who are being systematically raped and beaten by our troops guilty, or is theirs innocent blood? I’m sorry for being so graphic, but this is what the people of Iraq are living with every day! And now John McCain makes songs and jokes about bombing Iran. Why? What are they guilty of? When is the last time an Iranian hurt you? Then, this all coupled with John McCain’s support of torture… of all people… God hates the shedding of innocent blood, and so should you.
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations. God hates this as well. It is difficult to determine what is in a man’s heart, but sometimes his behavior tells on him. This is the case with John McCain. He is willing to marry one woman while still married to his first. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations whose goal it is to form a New World Order and devise wars, trans-national unions, etc. John McCain has also voted to remove or restrict our 2nd amendment rights EVERY TIME he has had the opportunity to do so in 26 years! God hates a heart that devises wicked imaginations, and so should you.
Feet that be swift in running to mischief. God hates these type of feet, he thinks they stink! Rolling Stone recently published a very thorough report of John McCain’s military service. Google it or e-mail me for the link. It is a very informative article, one that demonstrates John McCain’s swiftness towards mischief. If that isn’t enough to convince you, after all, Rolling Stone is a liberal rag, then think about this: two weeks into captivity (by John McCain’s own testimony) the North Vietnamese learned who John McCain’s father was. Two weeks, all by being told name, rank and serial number and nothing else. Yeah right!!! And, those first few weeks he was not even subjected to any torture as he was in a hospital recovering from his wounds. I’m not sure, but I believe having a new wife picked out before you have even divorced (unbiblically) your first wife might qualify for this category as well. Then, what about his plans to “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” even when they have never aggressed against us? God hates feet that be swift in running to mischief, and so should you.
A false witness that speaks lies. God hates a false witness who speaks lies. This isn’t talking about just a lying tongue, but rather about lying about others, a false witness. John McCain made 30+ recorded video tapes for his North Vietnamese captors regarding his own servicemen and his own country. Through his authority as a senator, with the help of his father who was then admiral of the navy, John McCain has been able to get these videotapes sealed and hidden from the public. But as scripture teaches, there is nothing hidden. While we may not be able to see these videos to know exactly what has been said and implicated on them, we do know of their existence and approximately what they contain because of the reports of those who made them, and those who transcribed them. And I submit to you, their character is no more impeachable than is John McCain’s. John McCain also followed up with lies about his fellow POW’s in senate hearings as he worked to block their release and leave them to die in some Vietnamese prison. God hates a false witness that speaks lies, and so should you.
He that soweth discord among brethren. This is the one thing on the list that God does not hate, but considers an abomination. This is also the only thing on the list that I can not attribute directly to John McCain without having ever attended church with him or spent time with the man. Unless you consider the discord which is sown by those who claim that he is a good, God-fearing man whom the rest of us ought to elect, but I will not attribute the fault of that to John McCain, but rather to those who despise wisdom and instruction.
So, for those fools out there who claim the name of Christ, I urge you to heed the wisdom and instruction of God’s word. For those of you who claim the name of Christ and already have your eyes open to see and your ears open to hear, I request that you help to spread this message and help wake up some of the others.
Remember, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Begin to fear him, and you will begin to acquire knowledge. Do not despise the wisdom and instruction of the Lord.

Fear Obama? Fear God!

2008-11-02T20:00:00.001-07:00

I have received untold numbers of e-mails, as well as having had numerous conversations with people who have told me that they are voting for John McCain because Barack Obama is so evil, socialistic, (insert your favorite epithet here). It has also been asserted by many that a vote for anyone other than McCain, or a non-vote is a vote for Obama. While there is certainly some very limited, VERY LIMITED merit in that line of thinking, let’s look at what kind of thinking is involved in that kind of thinking.
While I am aware that not all who will be reading this are Bible believers, I am planning to answer this from the lens of scripture as it seems that the vast majority of those with whom I am having this conversation claim to be Christian. While I believe there is a plethora of scripture refuting this line of thought, my first examination will be of a passage of scripture which many people, especially Christians, are familiar with.
2 Chronicles 7:14 – If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land.
Now I know that we all have heard this verse at least once, and we all love this verse. But have you ever really thought about this verse and what it really means? Well, I’m going to break it down piece by piece so that we can all see the fullness of this beautiful and blessed text.
“If…” An if, then statement always indicates a contractual agreement, a covenant. Pay close attention, because this is obviously a covenant between God, who is speaking, and someone else. You may be the someone, so you had better be paying close attention.
“…my people, who are called by my name…” This is the other party to the covenant. God’s people- who are called by His name. Could this possibly have current relevance to CHRISTians? Those who are the called and the chosen of God who are called by His name?
“…will humble themselves…” Does anyone today know what humility is? It is the opposite of pride. And what is pride? Pride is the original sin. The original sin of Lucifer, the original sin of Adam, the original sin of thinking that we are God, or at least as good as God. When we say that Obama will win, are we not saying that we can see and know the future? Then, when we say that we must vote for McCain, are we not saying that the future is in our control? So now, are we not attributing to ourselves the power to see and to control the future? And aren’t those attributes that God alone has? So, ask yourself, who is God? God, or you? If we are to humble ourselves, does this not mean that we should get rid of such flawed thinking, allow God to work, maybe to perform miracles, and repent of the sin of the pride of thinking that we know and control everything that is happening in the political realm?
“…and pray…” What does it mean to pray? Sure, we all have been taught that prayer is talking to God. But, really, do you think that this is all that is involved in prayer? Doesn’t relationship always involve both talking and listening? What does God’s Word have to say on the subject? What is His Spirit communicating with your spirit? I can assure you that choosing the lesser of two evils is not what He is communicating to you. Doesn’t scripture say, “Choose good, not evil that you may live!” (This may not be an exact quote, but is found in the book of Amos.) Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.
"...and seek my face..." If we are seeking God's face, will we be that focused on McCain's or Obama's? In fact, is there anything at all in either one of these men that would point one to Christ? Other than the fact that they are bipedal humanoids created by God, I have not been able to see even one thing in either one of them that would make me think of my Lord.
“…and turn from their wicked ways…” Is there anyone who believes that this does not and cannot be referring directly to the pride that we are being told in the beginning to humble ourselves of? To turn from our wicked ways would require repentance from our sin of thinking that we know all of the answers and that God is incapable of providing for our best interests. Doesn’t our Savior, in Matthew, tell us that God cares more for us than the flowers of the field and the birds of the air. And yet, does he allow them to be ruled by despots? Being ruled by tyrants has always been God’s way of judging His people for pride, disobedience, and unfaithfulness. If we repent now and turn from our wicked ways at this point in time, might God just remove from us this judgment? Well, let’s continue reading to see what the rest of the covenant contains.
“…then will I hear from heaven…” Does God suggest here that He will not hear our prayers as long as we are not humble, repentant, and prayerful? It sure sounds like it to me. But, in accordance with contractual law, He promises to begin listening to our prayers and to restore relationship with us as soon as we repent, humble ourselves, and pray. And unlike you or I, God never violates a covenant.
“…and will forgive their sins…” Forgiveness only comes after humility and repentance. This is a central theme of scripture. If we repent, then God will forgive. There are terms. Salvation is a free gift that cannot be achieved through works, but we still do have some minimal requirements. Be humble, pray, turn from your wicked ways. Failing these things, God will not listen to us, will not forgive our sins.
“…and will heal their land.” Besides the judgment of tyranny upon God’s people who are unrepentant and proud, other judgments which are common themes throughout scripture include: drought, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, plague, etc. Does anyone other than me notice that there is a high level of these scourges occurring across the nation today? Not only has there been a lot of drought and other ‘acts of God’ occurring, but we are, as are many other nations, facing famine because of over-exportation of food supplies, the government paying people not to farm, and the devaluation of our fiat money so that a loaf of bread that a few years ago cost one dollar now costs upwards of four dollars and climbing.
So, my Christian friend, I pray that you would study on this, dwell on this, and act on this before you go to the polls to vote. Remember that God performed miracles throughout the Old Testament, and continued this throughout the New Testament. God can do the same even today, but will not do so if we do not want or allow him to do so. Don’t get me wrong, God is not limited by us, but is willing to allow himself to be limited when giving us what we think we want as a way of getting our attention. Are you paying attention yet?

Attack on Home Education

2008-03-02T16:12:00.000-07:00

Attack on Home Education - by Todd King
We should have seen it coming. In fact, those of us who have our heads out of the sand did see it coming. The Appellate Court of California, 2nd App. District, 3rd Division, Judge Stephen Marpet, taking a sheet right out of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto has ruled against a homeschooling family in case number JD00773. Never mind that this family has raised 5 of their 8 children successfully via home education, now they have been ruled "unqualified" to properly teach their children at home. Have the children in question been ruled mentally deficient, or have they received sub-standard scores on the dumbed-down standardized tests they have been made to take every year? The answer to both these questions is, "NO!"
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) does not claim that the children involved were victims of incompetent, sub-par education, neither did the court find any evidence that might support such a claim. Even though in "the court's opinion... the home schooling the children were receiving was 'lousy,' 'meager,' and 'bad,'" Judge Marpet never qualified any of these terms or how he reached such a conclusion. Instead, he ruled that the parents could not prove that the education being provided was "as good or better than the children would have obtained in a public or private school." This in spite of the fact that standardized testing was done on a regular basis in a private academy.
No, it's not enough that parents provide an education that is equal to the public education system. If they can not demonstrably show that the education is better than what the children would have received otherwise, then it is not a risk the state is willing to take. And why does the court feel that the risk is too great? Well, in their own words, "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where; (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."
This is a pretty bold challenge which, if it has merit, may be worth considering. I'll examine it point by point to see if it does have any merit.
1) "They could interact with people outside the family"- Is the judge seriously suggesting that these children never have interaction with others at the park, grocery store, church, field trips and other activities? Or is DCFS accusing the family of locking their children in the house and never allowing them to see the light of day? Well, if such an accusation had been leveled, it never got presented to the court, so we can safely presume that such is not the case.
2) "There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives"- That's right, the parents are not only unqualified to teach their children, but they are not qualified to interpret their children's behavior and emotions, let alone to counsel them or teach them appropriate ways of dealing with anger, frustration or other negative behaviors. After all, we all know that the state cares more for our children than we as parents do, right?.
3) "They could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting"- In other words, children do not develop emotionally until they have been exposed to such corrupting influences as sex education, bullying, rude and crass joking and language, peer pressure, and environments that produce low self-esteem. It would also seem they deem it impossible for children to properly develop emotionally without the school system administering drugs, many times without the parents knowledge or consent. It has become commonplace in many schools in America today for fluoride, Ritalin, Prozac, and other behavior altering drugs to be administered in order to keep children subdued and docile.
It is interesting to note that the majority of home educated children in the past 30 years (yes, the modern home schooling movement has been around for that long) are amazingly well socialized. They also tend to excel in the national spelling bees, geography fairs, music competitions, and other academic contests. So much so, that homeschoolers are now beginning to be banned from some of them. If this is accurate, and statistics indicate it is, then what is the purpose of forcing these parents to place their children in the care and the custody of the public education system? Again, let us turn to the court for the answer. "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."
You heard it yourself, schools are not here to teach your kids the 3 "R's" or to teach them skills necessary to prepare them for the future. The primary purpose of schools is to teach children to be loyal to the state, just as children were taught in Lenin and Stalin's Russia/Soviet Union or Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 40's. And this is the ultimate reason why homeschoolers are under attack in California right now, and why we will begin to see this trend spread. Children who are home educated develop an inconquerable loyalty to family. Even more, the majority of home educating parents teach their children, rightly, that the current state is a thing of evil and should be resisted insomuch as it infringes upon your rights or the rights of others.
Please, consider taking your children out of the state sponsored day care now before it is too late. Just as the Soviet Union collapsed under Marx's principles, and Nazi Germany fell under the all-powerful state policies of Hitler, America will fail also if we allow these same architects, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, to mold our education policies for future generations.

Todd King is self-employed, and with his wife, is home educating their two children. Todd is also actively involved in the homeschool movement. For more information on home education or to give your feedback on this article, you may contact Todd at creatorsdesign@gmail.com

Editor's note: For more information about the reality of the public education system in the United States, please check out former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's website and book, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html

Jethro's Wisdom, Our Folly

2007-10-27T23:15:00.000-06:00

Now that we have looked at how the current administration stacks up to these requirements, we ought to compare the upcoming candidates, and see whether or not they measure up to the criteria laid out by Jethro. Now remember, one must meet all of these criteria. If a man does not meet one of the requirements, then he is disqualified, so with each candidate, when I reach one that disqualifies him, I will not continue examining that candidate further.
First, let's take a look at Rudy Giuliani. The first qualification is to be an able man. This is a man with competent moral power or qualifications. Does Giuliani have competent moral power? The man has been married numerous times, once to his own cousin, and has paraded down the streets of New York City dressed and acting like a transvestite. He also misappropriated funds, defended a priest who sexually molested two young girls, and supports torture.
So... Let's move on to Mitt Romney. Does Romney meet qualification number 1 of being an able man? Well, as much as is publicly known about Mr. Romney, he does seem to have this one down. So, let's look at requirement number 2, does he fear God? Well, Romney is an open and practicing Mormon. Mormon's do not believe that God is as he describes himself to be in the Bible. They deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and believe that God was once a man who was so good that he became a god, and that they can do likewise. By not accepting God's word, they thus make him a liar, and by claiming to be able to become equal to God, they blaspheme his name. Oh well, maybe McCain can do better.
John McCain, while married to his first wife, developed a relationship with another woman. He then abandoned his wife and children- who had stuck with him even through his time as a POW- to pursue a political career with the wealth and resources of his younger, more attractive new wife. After having 3 children by her, and adopting one, he then divorced her so that he could reconcile with his first wife. Biblically and morally, this would disqualify McCain from being a serious contender.
How about Fred Thompson then? Again, with the first qualification of being a morally able man, Thompson seems to fit the bill. The second, being a man who fears God is one that can't really be determined by viewing his public life, or by his own words. He says that he won't speak about his religion when politicking- a position which I respect. Number three is being a man of truth. While I believe that this would be a hard case to make for Thompson, that he's a man of truth, I'll even grant him this one. His 'official' position of being for the second amendment varies greatly from his voting record of various acts of legislation to ban or restrict guns. The final requirement though, is to hate covetousness. Thompson is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, a secretive group that seeks to consolidate power in the hands of the few, elite and worthy members of society, while increasing the gap between the wealthy and the middle class, and creating a one world government. This is covetousness to its extreme.
Well then, does pastor/ governor Mike Huckabee make it through the gauntlet? Huckabee, passed legislation making it more difficult for parents to home educate their children, said that the federal government needs to be bigger to 'legislate morality', set free a convicted rapist because the victim was a Clinton relative, who then went on to rape and murder another woman shortly thereafter, and tried to skirt laws that limited the size of gifts that could be made to politicians. I think the gauntlet has become too much for Mr. Huckabee.
So how about Ron Paul, how does he stack up? Paul is morally competent and able, having been married to the same woman for fifty years, raised his children to be productive without federal funds, and having a twenty year consistent voting record. He fears God as evidenced by his strict stance for upholding the oath he swore to God to uphold and defend the Constitution. Those who fear men rather than God think nothing of violating that oath. Something, by the way, that all of the above mentioned men have violated. Paul is a man of truth as, again, can be evidenced by his principled stand on every issue he has ever spoken or written about. His position never changes based upon what is politically expedient, but is always consistent. And, finally, Paul is the only one who hates covetousness. He desires LESS power rather than more, he uses LESS money than the federal government gives him for his job, he refuses to accept taxpayer money for his retirement, he worked for free oftentimes as a doctor to help those in need. In every one of these biblical qualifications, Ron Paul shines! And he is the only one who does so.
In the future, I will examine other biblical texts which talk about leaders and their qualifications and see how Ron Paul stands up to them.

Jethro's Wisdom

2007-10-14T21:42:00.000-06:00

In Exodus 19:21, Jethro, Moses' pa-in-law, gave Moses some advice about who he should pick to help lead and judge the people. This advice was to "provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness;" Now, it certainly is possible that Jethro was wrong in his judgment, but since Moses followed it, and God blessed him in is decision rather than commanding him to not heed the advice of his pa-in-law, that it was sound advice.
Before we get into looking at any one man, and comparing them to these qualifications, it is important that we first define our terms. Just so you know, I use the original Noah Webster's 1828 version of the American Dictionary of the English Language to define all of my terms. If you have a problem with that, so what. I know terms and meanings have changed over the years, but that is not a good thing and, therefore, I will be using the terms as they were originally defined. I will also make clear what definition I am using, so that it is clear to all- even those who would prefer a more modern dictionary.
So, able men defined by Webster was 1)having physical power sufficient;having competent power or strength, physical or mental; 2)having strong or unusual powers of mind; 3)having large or competent property; 4)having competent strength or fortitude; 5)having sufficient knowledge or skill; and 6)having competent moral power or qualifications. This last, being the most applicable- as I will look at shortly- needs further clarification. The word moral means 'relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right or wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined.'
Fear God holds with it the 2nd definition of the verb fear, to reverence; to have a reverential awe; to venerate.
Men of truth should be self explanatory, but in this day and age and political environment, this is probably the most important term to define. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be.
Hating covetousness... covetousness means a strong or inordinate desire of obtaining and possessing some supposed good.
So then, when we apply this litmus test to our current leaders, it would be prudent to ask ourselves, do they pass? Our current president, with an approval rating that is hovering in the bottom third, and has become precipitously close to single digits, here, does not seem to meet the first definition of able for he obviously cannot physically lead his own people into battle, and does not have the mental acumen to keep the people following him. The man cannot read a tele-prompter, and has said some of the dumbest things ever to come out of the mouth of man, see bushisms. This obviously disqualifies him from the 2nd definition of able. How about the third? Whew! Finally, one he passes, owning lots of property. However, obviously Jethro was not referring to such an idea when he spoke to Moses since the Israelites were, at this time, wandering in the desert and none of them owned property. So, another strike for el presidente here as well. So, for number 4, does Bush qualify? According to it, he must have fortitude which, according to Webster, means the enabling of a person to encounter danger with coolness and courage. Does this sound like a man who sets up free-speech zones so that he never has to face those who disagree with him? I didn't think so, in fact, in my neck of the woods, it's called cowardice. Well, ok, how about def. 5? The man does not understand economics, cannot read a Constitution, cannot speak in a complete sentence, even when it is pre-written, and scored just in the mid-range during his college career. Nope, doesn't fit. All right, well how about 6 which I already said was probably THE important definition anyway. Well, does GWB have competent moral qualifications? Does he look to the law of God to determine whether or not his standards, or those belonging to the men around him, show right character? He has appointed more homosexuals than any other president before him, he has said repeatedly that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, and he has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq just to depose their evil dictator (which, by the way, was accomplished a number of years ago, and yet the killing continues).
So, Bush may not be able, but what about a man that fears God. Doesn't he say that he is a Christian? Well, remember now that fear means to reverence. Does Bush reverence God when he equates Him with the same god of Islam? How about when he violates his oath to the Constitution which he swore to God! Does comparing someone to a lesser show respect? How about lying to someone and breaking your promise to them? Do these actions show respect or reverence? I didn't think so either.
Well alright, is he a man of truth at least? Stifle the giggles that have come erupting from your mouth long enough to remember the many, amny lies that sold us into this war with Iraq. Things like WMD's and an alliance with bin Laden, which were later admitted to publicly by our P and our VP to be lies.
At least he hates covetousness right? Right? Well, maybe not. Anybody who invades other countries, whether it truly is for oil, or for empire, has a strong streak of covetousness in him. So, as can be seen, Bush clearly does not meet the qualifications for a Godly leader as set out in Exodus 19.
So, why do the evangelicals support him so rabidly? And are there any candidates that meet these qualifications? These are both questions that we will address in the near future.