Mormons Say Mexicans Are God’s Chosen People (And Many Mexican Illegals Agree!)

Now some would call Vdare.com a “hate site.” (Not against Mormons, but rather blacks and Hispanics). If you can, er, get past that, read the information below.

www.vdare.com/awall/080128_memo.htm

JAMES DOBSON ENDORSES MORMON MITT ROMNEY!

I first saw this here but it was confirmed in this devotional as well. Man oh man, I love this election season. So many prominent Christian leaders in the limelight are being exposed for what they are. From the people backing Huckabee despite knowing his connections to the Council on Foreign Relations and to apostates like Kenneth Copeland and John Hagee to Pat Robertson backing Giuliani to the MANY evangelicals and even some fundamentalists backing Mormon Mitt Romney to Donnie McClurkin and many other leading black Christians backing Barack HUSSEIN Obama (here, here, here, here, here, here) well the Lord is exposing for the whole world to see what these prominent Christians are really about and after – the things of this world.Christians, is this the falling away of the American church? If so, make sure that you are not part of that falling away. In a sense, things have been this bad for quite awhile, because the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was no better than a Mormon because he did not believe in the deity or resurrection of Jesus Christ despite it being commonly reported … so many people do not know because they do not care to know. And never forget: King’s rise was due to so many alleged Christians, many of them evangelicals and fundamentalists, supporting segregation and racism! Still, I regularly ask some older (than me) Christians have things always been this bad, and even the ones that personally experienced segregation and poverty say without hesitation “No, it wasn’t.”

liveprayer.com/signup.cfm(Ezekiel 34:1-6)

***DR. DOBSON AND RUSH LIMBAUGH ARE THE LATEST TO JOIN THE “JUDAS GALLERY” !!! WWW.VOTINGFORSATAN.COM IS ONLINE!!! I’ve launched this new website — www.votingforsatan.com — not to tell people who to or not to vote for, but to help educate people on what Mormon’s really believe and hold accountable high-profile Christians who have endorsed cult member Romney’s bid for
the Presidency. The new site features an interactive section with
polls and a great message board where you can post your thoughts and
comments, news notes on the race for the White House, my numerous
Devotionals on Romney and the Mormon church, in-depth writings by an
ex-Mormon that clearly lay out the beliefs and theology of Mormonism,
as well as special videos including the TV program I did in the magical
Mormon underwear worn 24/7 by high level Mormons. Please check it out
and help me by telling everyone you know about this new site, and post
it on every message board and chat room you can find, especially the
sites that cater to politics.

“The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the
shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign
LORD says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves!
Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe
yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not
take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the
sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or
searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they
were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered
they became food for all the wild animals. My sheep wandered over all the
mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth,
and no one searched or looked for them.” Ezekiel 34:1-6

A sad commentary on so many pastors and Christian leaders right from God’s
Word. Last week I was doing some study in the Book of Ezekiel. In reading
through some passages, I came across these first 6 verses in Ezekiel 34. As
I read these words, I could only think that this was the sad description of
so many pastors and Christian leaders today. 50 years ago, you could sit in
the pew of most any church of any denomination and hear the Truth of God’s
Word. Those pastors and the men and women God raised up on the national
scene were men and women who would never compromise the Truth of the Bible
and understood their only mission was to bring the lost to Christ.

Fast forward to the year 2008 and you have entire denominations of pastors
who don’t even preach, teach or believe the Bible. It is questionable if
many pastors were ever “called” and are even saved. Those who have risen up
into national prominence are more worried about selling books, having the
newest private jet, building bigger buildings, and living like the rulers of
small nations rather than preaching the unadulterated Truth of the Bible and
leading the lost to faith in Jesus Christ. My goodness, you now have
so-called Christian leaders who are endorsing and working for the member of
a satanic cult to become our next President!!!

When these are the men and women leading the people, why are we surprised
that many who sit in the pews of the nations churches on Sunday aren’t even
saved, don’t accept the Bible as Absolute Truth and our only authority, and
the majority of the ones who do lead weak and ineffective lives. That is
why I encourage people all the time to seek out a pastor who is a true
shepherd. That is increasingly difficult today, but there are still many
men of God who have not bowed their knee to Baal and are not the shepherds
described in Ezekiel 34. Sunday is the day most Christians go to church. It
is the only time most of you ever see your pastor, and that is usually from
your seat in the sanctuary as he leads the worship service and preaches the
message.

Having preached in over 500 churches of every denomination nationwide, I can
honestly tell you that for most pastors, Sunday morning is their favorite
day of the week and the one day they usually feel their work for God really
has some meaning. You can never know the pressure most pastors are under. If
it was only getting up on Sunday morning and being the “man of God” it would
be wonderful, but that is not reality. It is a 7-day a week, 24-hour a day
calling. Many have outside jobs. There is the constant pressures of raising
the budget, dealing with the interpersonal problems that always exist when
you have a group of people, overseeing the political infighting that often
occurs, on top of the spiritual requirements of shepherding the flock,
having an anointed word each week for the various services, and other
requirements the office of pastor carries with it.

My prayer for you today is to support your pastor. Pray for your pastor each
day. John 10 gives us the picture of the ideal pastor. Pray that your pastor
will be able to tear away from the distractions of this world to be the
shepherd described in John 10. God has placed that pastor in your life to
guide you, spiritually nurture you, and have spiritual leadership over your
life. Do all you can to show your love and appreciation for all your pastor
does for you, most of which you may not even recognize. Also, God has placed
your pastor in your life for spiritual leadership. When you come into times
of crisis, don’t hesitate to go to your pastor. That is ultimately why they
are there, to help you and guide you through those difficult times in your
life.

I love you and care about you so much. I pray for you daily. Sadly, today
there are too many pastors and Christian leaders who fall into the
description found in Ezekiel 34. It makes the work that much more difficult
when you have people running around calling themselves Christians, but
supporting sins like abortion, homosexuality, the destruction of God’s plan
fo the family. You have others who think there is nothing wrong with
belonging to a cult or false religions and they have bought the
universalistic lie from hell that everyone will get to Heaven.

Let this message today be a remember to lift up your pastor in prayer and
recognize him for all he does for your life. God has called His sheep to be
obedient and obey those in spiritual authority. Take inventory and see if
you are fulfilling this admonition, and ask God to help you. He loves you so
much, that he has placed your pastor in your life to shepherd you and guide
you in your spiritual journey. Show your love for Him today by praying for
and supporting your pastor.

In His love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller bkeller@liveprayer.com

***ARE YOU 100% CERTAIN WHERE YOU WILL SPEND ETERNITY? The fact is you will
die one day. At that moment, you will either spend eternity with the Lord or
be cast into everlasting darkness forever separated from God your creator.
To know for certain you will be forever with Jesus, go to:
http://www.liveprayer.com/bdy_salvatn.cfm

***I am excited to let you know that the Liveprayer Daily Devotional is now
available via AUDIO each day. Simply go to http://www.liveprayer.com/Audio.cfm
Also, you can now listen to the Daily Devotional by phone by calling 1-727-342-5673

(C) Copyright 2008, Bill Keller Ministries. All rights reserved.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bill Kristol Being Added To New York Times Oped Page

huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/28/bill-kristol-to-become-e_n_78635.html

In my old religious right GOP days, I would have hailed this as a victory for conservatism. But now, I am forced to reckon with the fact that Bill Kristol is not a Christian, but a very aggressive big business neoconservative Zionist who is extremely hard – hearted towards the poor and the dispossessed. As a matter of fact, Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, who is called the father of neoconservatism. Now is not the time to be worried about being labeled “anti – Semite” or be distracted with ideological or partisan political games. As much as I oppose Mike Huckabee, it is interesting to note, for instance, that the neocons are trashing the fellow because he represents people that actually takes their Christianity seriously rather than worshiping a false god of state, tradition, heritage, values, etc. These same people actually went ballistic over Mike Huckabee’s saying “the purpose of Christmas is to honor Christ”, hounded him until he stopped calling himself “a Christian leader” in his ads (despite the fact that it was a literally true statement from a former megachurch pastor and head of the Arkansas Southern Baptist Convention), and actually dedicated several days to analyzing whether Huckabee used special lighting effects to make the light reflecting off a bookshelf behind him take the form of a crucifix! They have spent the last month emulating the New York Times, NPR, and what have you in calling Huckabee’s supporters ignorant bigots out to start a holy war. The best part is how they trash Huckabee for having the same record and positions on issues that Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have.

If that is what people think of those that follow the false Christianity that tolerates people like John Hagee and Kenneth Copeland (whose support Huckabee has aggressively courted) and if they went apoplectic over hateful Anne Coulter’s dual covenant theology, then what do they think of real Christianity and actual Christians? The New York Times’ hiring this fellow really does show that when it comes down to it, the mainstream left and the right are on the same side when it comes to the globalist agenda. Kristol is going to use the influence of the New York Times to win over as many liberals to that agenda as possible just as a generation ago William F. Buckley used the National Review to transform the conservative movement into its current neoconservative manifestation.

Proof positive: Bill Kristol agrees with George W. Bush, the Wall Street Journal, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. on amnesty for illegal immigrants and not enforcing our borders in general. Kristol, when it comes down to it, is just another Council on Foreign Relations/Rockefeller guy, and he is going to use his position at the New York Times to lead a lot of liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. down that path.

Joseph And Mary Were Not Illegal Immigrants Lying Liberal Christian Left!

A lot of people ask why I give the religious right a lot of grief while generally ignoring the religious left. The reason is that where the religious left explicitly rejects the inerrancy and authority of the Bible (though to be honest they do their best to hide that fact when they are trying to use Bible arguments to influence those that actually do take the Bible seriously) the religious right pretending to adhere to Biblical inerrancy and authority while honestly not caring any more for the Bible than the religious left does is deceiving the saints. Of course, the religious left deceives their charges too, but that deception is primarily of a theological nature.

But more attention should be paid to the attempts of the religious left to influence Bible – believing Christians, so here we go: an attempt by Christian leftist oped writer Cynthia Tucker to use the experiences of Joseph and Mary to support doing nothing about illegal immigration (see link).

The politics of the Grand Old Party’s ultra-conservative religionists produce the oddest cognitive dissonance. This campaign season has illuminated the jarring contrast between the public piety of conservative Christians — a significant faction in the Republican Party — and their intense anger toward illegal immigrants. (As if Tucker’s own intense anger towards conservatives is any more Christian.)

That hostility is all the more jarring at Christmastime, when Christians around the world commemorate the birth of Christ. You’d think that the season would bring forth an outpouring of compassion, mercy and generosity. After all, the Bible, which conservative Christians hold out as the inerrant word of God, includes several admonitions to practice kindness toward “strangers.” (She starts almost right off the bat. First off, Tucker is employing the common religious right tactic of pretending that America is Old Testament Israel and that we should govern ourselves by its laws. Except that Tucker, hypocritically, is the first to make the invalid claim that since Christians do not keep the Old Testament dietary laws then we should ignore that the New Testament calls homosexuality a sin. Further, the “strangers” in Israel were not people that entered the nation illegally and refused to leave when told to. Indeed, such people would have been dealt with according to the punishments given to the unpenitent lawless by Old Testament law: death.)

But kindness doesn’t seem to be much in the minds of Bible-thumping conservatives. Sadie Fields, head of the Georgia Christian Alliance, has long criticized public benefits such as health care for the children of illegal immigrants. “We’re against illegal immigrants because we must uphold the rule of law,” she has said. “We are a nation of law. Our biblical worldview mandates that we be a people of law.” (Cynthia Tucker cannot deny that Sadie Fields’ position conforms to scripture; if she could she would. So she resorts to calling her names.)

According to polls, immigration is a much more important issue among Republican voters than among Democrats. That’s especially true in early voting states such as Iowa and South Carolina, where sizable pockets of illegal immigrants have settled only in the last decade or so.

The intensity of the resentment has come as a surprise to Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister. As an abortion-detesting, evolution-denying homophobe, Huckabee is fast winning the devotion of his party’s Christianists, who seem to confuse the office of president with that of preacher or priest. But Huckabee has one glaring flaw in an otherwise perfect doctrinal suite: He has shown compassion toward illegal immigrants. (More name – calling. Now in what universe should a person that rejects what the Bible says about creation, homosexuality, and murder care about what it says about kindness, mercy, love, peace, or anything else? That is not a question for atheists who reject the Bible for human reason but the Christian left in continually invoking a book that they regard as having no more validity than Aesop’s fables.)

As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee supported legislation that would have made undocumented college students eligible for college scholarships and in-state tuition prices. Besides the imminent practicality of the proposition — Arkansas, like its Southern neighbors, needs more college graduates — Huckabee says he wouldn’t “hold children responsible for something their parents did” — crossing the border illegally. (No, it was to draw illegal immigrants into Arkansas to work at Tyson Foods and similar industries for less money and benefits than Tyson Foods wanted to pay legal labor despite being well able to afford it. And the money saved by breaking our laws and forcing Americans in desperately poor Arkansas out of work went into the pockets of Tyson’s CEOs and shareholders.)

For that modest bit of pragmatism, Huckabee is being hammered by Mitt Romney, who wants his Iowa lead back. Though he was relatively moderate on immigration as governor of Massachusetts, he now presents himself in an ad as the leader who bravely “stood up and vetoed in-state tuition for illegal aliens, opposed driver’s licenses for illegals.” (If only the religious right leaders were as honest about Romney’s flip – flops as this Christian leftist liar. This demonstrates how both sides are liars and that Christians should follow neither.)

Polls notwithstanding, Huckabee’s position seems more biblically correct. (First of all, what do you care, and second of all you are lying. Nowhere in the Bible does it advocate rewarding lawbreakers or giving their children benefits in order to induce even more illegal behavior. Also, if we are going on the example of Old Testament Israel, the Bible made it clear that Israel was to look out for Israel first, second, third, fourth, tenth, etc., not take jobs and benefits from Israelis and give them to lawbreaking foreigners.) “We welcome the stranger because the Savior himself was not welcomed in mainstream society,” said Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics. “The whole teaching of ‘no room at the inn’ was about someone poor and marginalized and pushed off to a stable.” (Now the Baptist Center for Ethics is a Christian left outfit. Here is an article on that that rejects the deity of Jesus Christ. While Mary and Joseph were certainly poor, that was not why they were pushed off to a stable. The reason was that all of the rooms were occupied. Accommodating Joseph and Mary would have meant someone else being kicked out of their room and having to go to a stable. As Jesus Christ made Himself of no reputation and came to serve, such a thing being done on His account would have been contrary to His earthly mission.)

For Republicans less comfortable with mixing the Bible and ballots, there are worldly reasons to be wary of the deep-seated resentment of illegal immigrants among a significant GOP constituency. As President Bush has warned, Republicans risk permanent minority status if they alienate Latinos, the fastest-growing and largest ethnic group, accounting for about 15 percent of the population. (As the segregationists warned, the Democrats would alienate white voters for decades by supporting civil rights. Is Cynthia Tucker saying that the Democrats were wrong? By the way, as detestable as Jim Crow was, it was perfectly legal just as the far bigger evil of abortion is legal right now. Illegal immigration is not. Cynthia Tucker is claiming that people who oppose breaking the law and those who do it are wrong somehow. Would Tucker feel the same way about someone that broke a civil rights law or even so much as prevented their minor child from getting an abortion? Nope.)

Indeed, a recent poll by the Pew Hispanic Center shows the last several months of shrill nativism have already proved costly. About 57 percent of Hispanic registered voters now lean toward the Democratic Party, while only 23 percent lean toward the GOP — a gap of 34 percentage points, the poll showed. Just a year ago, the gap was just 21 percentage points. (Democrats in 1964 equals Republicans now. If doing the right thing didn’t have a cost then in most cases it wouldn’t actually be the right thing at all. The Bible says so, by the way, about how doing the right thing almost always comes at a cost, not that Tucker will say that. Unless it is about the cost of making a stand that she supports, like supporting homosexual marriage.)

Still, the steady drumbeat of anti-immigrant demagoguery continues on the Republican campaign trail, even as the candidates try to hype their Biblical bona fides. It’s a strange spectacle in a season ostensibly dedicated to peace on Earth and goodwill toward all humankind. (No mention that the illegal immigrants themselves are obligated to show their dedication to peace and goodwill by obeying the law.)

Joseph and Mary were not illegal immigrants, people. They were Jews and legal residents of Rome. They had every right to be in Bethlehem or any other place in the Roman empire that Jews were allowed to settle. This was also true when they went to Egypt fleeing Herod’s armies. Egypt was a part of the Roman Empire. At no point in the nativity narrative did Joseph or Mary break any law. If illegal immigrants were to desiring to emulate the example of Joseph and Mary, they would obey the law by leaving the country. If America’s citizens want illegal immigrants to emulate the example of Joseph and Mary, we would do everything in our power to demand that they stop breaking the law by remaining here legally. If we want their Hispanic citizen brethren to follow the Joseph and Mary example, then we should demand of them that they not advocate for or defend lawbreaking.

If your example is Jesus Christ instead of Joseph and Mary (as it should be) well Jesus Christ never sinned. Not that the Christian left believes this. Jesus Christ never broke any laws. The Christian left – as well as people like John Hagee – teaches precisely the opposite; that Jesus Christ was executed by the Roman government for being a political subversive. They hold that Jesus Christ’s sentence was unjust only because they believe that people who break the law by being subversives should not be punished. Just as they believe that illegal immigrants should not be. The left demanding that their criminals be freed from jail on the grounds that they are “political prisoners”? Precisely the same as their view towards illegal immigrants.

Let us be clear: Cynthia Tucker does not want the border to be enforced because the illegal immigrants are nonwhite. Tucker and the rest of the left believes that reducing the number of whites in this nation will make the nation less conservative. The left does not truly want an open immigration policy, because they know that America being flooded would completely wreck the country. The left merely wants to TRANSFORM the country. But if it was right wing conservatives coming into this country illegally, not only would the left have made sure that we built a border fence long ago, but they would have snipers posted to pick anyone that happened to make it across off. And yes, they would claim that the Bible says to do it just as a great many of them have no problem using the Bible to justify homosexuality and abortion.

Mike Huckabee’s Religious Right Crackup: Why The GOP Establishment Truly Loathes Him

First, you had Roman Catholics declare that evangelicals had BETTER back Mitt Romney or be declared bigots. Second, you had evangelicals going after Mitt Romney. Third you have Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani. Fourth you had Mike Huckabee’s rise after his outstanding debate performances, especially the Youtube one. Fifth, you had the hateful Mormon reaction towards Huckabee’s rise, aimed not so much towards Huckabee as his evangelical supporters. Sixth, you had the GOP leadership attacking Huckabee for basically having the same positions as Giuliani and Romney (yes, we know Giuliani openly courted illegal immigrants and blocked enforcement attempts by federal officials, and that Mitt Romney raised taxes and negotiated and signed a $50 abortion universal healthcare plan that will lead to more tax increases in the future, but it was OK when THEY do it because THEY are so like electable or principled or something and Huckabee is not!). Now, we have the clearest example of why the GOP establishment hates Huckabee: the tiff between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. Now the last Vatican Council closed the rift between Catholics and mainline Protestants. Billy Graham and religious right politics brought Catholics and mainstream respectable evangelicals closer together.

But it appears that Huckabee has no interest in being a mainstream respectable evangelical leader like Billy Graham, who sat right before Richard Nixon and did not raise a single voice of objection or even silently get up and leave when Nixon was ranting racist statements in his presence (please keep in mind that Graham is regarded as a civil rights leader) against not only blacks but also the low income whites that made up the bulk of Graham’s most faithful followers. Now if Huckabee were willing to play ball, he could have simply gone to the powers that be and gotten himself a fistful of cash. As it is, Huckabee is going his own way, and it is not a way that pleases the Vatican.

Take Mike Huckabee’s visit to the “church” of John Hagee, whom IndependentConservative has labeled the biggest heretic of 2007 for his preaching a form of dispensational pretribulationism that is so extreme that it denies Christianity. Now Hagee does appropriately oppose the Vatican, but only in a distorted fashion that supports his own devil’s doctrines. But even that is too much for the supporters of the replacement of God on earth, so now we have the National Review’s token minority, Roman Catholic Kathryn Jean Lopez, demanding that Mike Huckabee NOT preach at John Hagee’s church on the grounds that it would divide the Republican Party. Quoting Lopez with my comments, as usual, in italics and parentheses:

With great power comes great responsibility. And Mike Huckabee, once and future Baptist preacher, could afford to watch where he’s taking to the pulpit. That’s “future” because the former evangelical pastor will be at John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church on Sunday. According to a San Antonio Huckabee meetup site, Huckabee will be speaking at two Sunday services at the Texas megachurch. He’ll be making the appearances just days after he told CBS News that “It’s not like [I’m] stepping from the pulpit last Sunday and running for president.”

But maybe next Sunday . . .

The problem with this particular church is its pastor. It is no secret that evangelicals and Catholics have their theological differences. If we didn’t we’d all be under the same church roof like once upon a time. But Hagee has been particularly outspoken beyond his Cornerstone Church, as a supporter of Israel and a prolific writer. His activism has brought some attention to his views on the Catholic Church. In Hagee’s “black history” of the Catholic Church, for example, Catholics were far from only guilty of sins of omission when it came to the Nazis, they also gave Hitler his blueprint, according to Hagee. In a speech this year, Hagee pointed to the Catholic Church as having provided the jumping-off point for the Holocaust, claiming: “That was really drawn by the Roman church. [Hitler] did not do anything differently. He only did it more ruthlessly, and on a national scale.” (This is where Hagee’s doctrinal history is wrong; the Lutheran Church in Germany, which by that time had become a typical secular liberal “Christian values” state church, fully endorsed and supported Hitler to the point where they proclaimed that God had raised up Hitler to restore Germany to greatness. Liberal theologian Karl Barth’s claim to fame was opposing the Lutheran Church in this matter and being proven right by history, even if Barth was right on little else.) The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has long been concerned about Hagee’s rhetoric, calling him a “veteran bigot,” accusing him of distorting Catholic teachings and misrepresenting Church history. The League has cautioned that, “Tone matters … and Hagee’s tone is nothing but derisive.”

Hagee is politically active and has had candidates at his church before and is likely to again. It’s probably only natural that Huckabee would be among them. And certainly other candidates have courted or been endorsed by religious figures who are not known for their ecumenical diplomacy. But after weeks of being a divider, not a uniter — pretending to innocently raise questions about Mormon theology to a New York Times reporter, informing Today Show viewers that he is really the choice for evangelicals — Huckabee should be sensitive to his unnecessarily exclusionary tactics.

As the former governor of Arkansas, successor to the Little Rock Clinton administration, Mike Huckabee above all people should understand the importance of having a strong coalition to BEAT HER in the fall. Speaking like a man seeking to be president of evangelical America, not president of the United States, Huckabee told Meredith Vieira earlier this week: “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican party. They wanted us to be a part of it, and then one day, one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh! Now they’re serious.’” (Of course, this is precisely how non – evangelical supporters have been acting towards his campaign. None of them have even so much as stated that they want to see an evangelical in this race or any other. Quite the contrary, they have made a point of making it clear that they prefer Mormons or even secular candidates to evangelicals at every turn.)

Huckabee, meanwhile, is leaving some non-evangelical conservatives wondering, “Oh, my gosh. Maybe they never wanted to be allied with us.” (No mention that evangelicals are wondering the same.) Huckabee is working right now, intentionally or not, on breaking down a winning coalition of religious conservatives. (Right. The previous traditions of having religious conservatives voting for necromancers like Ronald Reagan and universalist occultists like George H. W. and George W. Bush was so much better, just like everything would be just fine were religious conservatives to vote for Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney now.)

When Pope John Paul II died in 2005, some of the most moving statements coming out of congressional offices were from evangelical conservatives who viewed him as an important leader in defending the sanctity of human life. (Again, you would be fine with evangelicals supporting pro – death Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani, don’t you? Of course you would.) Many of them had adopted his “culture of life” language and thinking. (Sure, as if evangelicals hadn’t been using that phraseology for decades.) They saw him as an ally and were inspired by his leadership. They joined him, despite theological differences, in important cultural and political fights. It was and is a natural pairing. (It was never a “pairing” but rather Rome using evangelicals to gain power for themselves, a situation that you wish to preserve.) Mike Huckabee, who is not a conservative on all things (Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative on anything but do you mention him? no because he is from New York and a Catholic), but is on social issues, should know that and treasure and protect and foster these alliances. He’s a riveting speaker who could rally social conservatives, at least to whip them up to fight another day. (There. You said it. That is what you want. You have no desire to see an evangelical ever become President or a legitimate leader in the conservative movement. Your only desire is to create another pawn to replace the compromised or fading Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, etc. to deliver votes to you people.) Instead, he’s executing a divide-and-conquer strategy. (Speaking of “divide and conquer”, what are the many Republican Jews that love John Hagee going to say about your demands that Mike Huckabee not speak at John Hagee’s church because a conservative Catholic insists on a revisionist form of the Holocaust favorable to the Catholic Church be adhered to?)

When Mitt Romney was convinced he had to give a “Mormon speech,” he gave a speech about religious liberty and America. It wasn’t, in other words, about him. Of course, that was, in part, a political calculation — how much could be gained by talking about Mormon theology during a political campaign? But it was also just the right thing. (OK, so willfully deceiving people on matters of faith in order to get them to vote for you is the right thing to do. Gotcha. Thanks for admitting that this is precisely what the GOP has been doing to evangelicals for all these decades and you are angry at Huckabee for not willing to keep the scam going.) It’s a political campaign and people want to hear about his political thinking — what America means to him and how he fits into it all, what he can offer Americans in terms of leadership. (No, evangelicals want to hear him stop claiming that Mormonism is Christianity because unless he does he shows that he has no respect for the same Christians that he hypocritically demands respect from, and is fundamentally dishonest and cannot be trusted in office, as if his betraying the Massachusetts voters by flip – flopping on every single social issue did not demonstrate that already. Ironically, Roman Catholic religious right commentators like yourself and Bob Novak claim that Mitt Romney’s being able to lie and get away with it to the voters of Massachusetts is precisely why evangelicals should support him! In reality, Roman Catholics could care less about whether Romney is going to go back on his promise not to use the White House to promote Mormonism, because they know that relatively few Roman Catholics convert to Mormonism as opposed to huge numbers of evangelicals, and as a matter of fact I would bet they get some sort of perverse pleasure out of seeing evangelicals become Mormons.) Since Mike Huckabee has found himself at the front of the Republican field, it’s been more The Mike Show than not. (And that is different from the other candidates in the race how? Oh, that is right. Only the other candidates are supposed to run races with an actual expectation of winning. Everything evangelicals are supposed to do is to promote the GOP while receiving absolutely nothing in return.) In a treadmill interview with the New York Times earlier this week, he claimed “I’m being questioned about the details of my faith like no one else.” Mitt Romney and Barack Obama might legitimately argue that point, Gov. He’s cast aspersions on another candidate’s religion. (You mean like you are doing his right now?) He’s highlighted hostilities among evangelicals and others in the Republican party. (You mean like you have done with about four or five of your own columns including this one?) If he keeps this up, he’s going to do some unholy damage. (You mean force evangelicals to admit that the GOP is never going to push their agenda and that they have been taken for a ride all this time?)

With all due respect to Hagee and his congregation (who are, of course, entitled to believe and say as they choose), Mike Huckabee should cancel his Sunday plans with Hagee. It can be his Christmas present to his party — to hold it together instead of continuing to tear it apart. (No, even if he does cancel this visit, you will still tear down Huckabee’s campaign by claiming that evangelicals are a bunch of ungrateful dumb bigots like you have been doing for the past month. What you are doing is demanding that evangelicals not fight back.)

This is really what it is all about: Huckabee’s populist economic rhetoric. While Huckabee has not overtly come out against free trade and other forms of economic globalism (regrettably he has done the contrary) Huckabee has been more than willing to rally and exploit the feelings of those harmed and alienated by economic globalism. That was why hypocrite heretic Ron Paul went after Huckabee: he and the Huckster are going after some of the same people. But in doing this, Huckabee is treading on very dangerous ground for the GOP. The left has for years pointed out how the GOP has maintained the support of low – income whites despite their pro – rich and pro – corporate economic views by baiting Hollywood (and our universities) as bastions of anti – Christian elitism. And they are right. But this is the trick. The GOP bashes the liberal PROFESSORS at these universities, not the corporations that endow their chairs and give these universities tons of money. The GOP bashes the liberal Hollywood ACTORS, DIRECTORS, and SINGERS that create anti – Christian movies and songs, NOT Sony, Time Warner, Disney, etc. that have made the conscious decision to pervert the masses.

By keeping the focus on Madonna, they draw the spotlight away from the fact that no one would have heard of this woman in the first place had corporate America not signed her to a record deals, constantly bombarded us with her music, videos, and movies, and continued to keep her in the public eye even after her many artistic and commercial failures (of which she has actually produced more of than her successes). You hate MTV? Good for you. But what about the corporation that owns MTV, and the other corporations that carry it as part of basic cable or satellite? You hate pornography? Good for you. But the Internet pornography industry would dry up overnight if the big banks stopped allowing their credit cards and similar to be used to support this stuff. And then there is the fact that many things vital to conservatism including Fox News are owned by the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch!

So when one looks at it, the anti – corporate message (and by that I mean amoral unaccountable global corporations that not only are only interested in money but seem to have figured out that the more they do to destabilize cultures in nation – states the more power they have to control the governments and markets in these nations … if you have a population that is strung out on porn, rock music, sports gambling, and unhealthy foods whether we are talking about the high fat high sugar junk foods or the even more harmful chemically engineered health foods for the body image worshiping diet and exercise fanatics a corporation can easily manipulate it to maximize its power and profits) is actually a pro – Christian, pro – family, and pro – freedom message. What the GOP and the religious right have done is successfully convince white evangelicals that big government is evil (which is true because the Bible says so) BUT THAT BIG BUSINESS IS GOOD (when the Bible says opposite).

Now initially, Jerry Falwell and a lot of the others understandably signed onto the “business is good for Christianity” message to oppose communism, and that is understandable, as in addition to the external threat of the Soviet Union communism was a huge INTERNAL threat as well. But in the process, these folks forgot that the definition of fascism according to Benito Mussolini is “the corporatization of government power.” If you read Daniel and Revelation, the anti – Christ regime and the regime of the great harlot Babylon is not a communist one but a hypercapitalist fascist one where any filthy perversion that one wants can be had at the right price. Also, consider the figure of the false prophet … the anti – Christ’s rule will not be based on atheist Marxist ideology but will include a false religious ideology that will be very important to it. Religious right leaders at the time claimed that the atheist and Marxist doctrines of communism was a religion in its own right, and while I do not disagree, what the eschatological scriptures of the Bible seem to point to resembles much more closely the emperor/sun worship of the Roman Empire or the state religion of fascist Nazi Germany. So it appears that the Christian leaders that hopped onto the pro – business agenda of the Ronald Reagan (who was the first president to have official diplomatic relations with the Vatican) GOP in their zeal to oppose communism might have actually enabled a worse evil. And then you have the fellows that came up after Falwell: Pat Robertson and James Dobson. Pro – business religious right politics was very much in the interests of building their own financial empires … Robertson is reportedly a billionaire (and you know that with his many oil interests he is not the least bit concerned with how the tripling of the price of gas under the Bush administration has harmed the poor) and though Dobson’s finances are not as well known the fellow is obviously extremely wealthy.

But at what cost? China has cast off Maoism because they have discovered that one can become a more powerful and effective aggressor and imperialist using economics than with a military, and is also experimenting with a version of state – sponsored false Christianity that they find is useful to their purposes, and Pat Robertson is helping them in that regards. In Russia meanwhile Vladimir Putin has for all intents and purposes made the Russian Orthodox Church a state church, and the Through The Bible ministry reports that both are working together to oppose evangelical outreach efforts in that nation, and we also know how aggressively Russia has used economics to pursue its own interests. And yes, some would add Israel to that mix. “Christian Zionists” like John Hagee and Pat Robertson do their best to prevent you from knowing this, but Zionism was originally a secular socialist movement, and as such Israel was originally a secular socialist state, but over the decades Israel has become increasingly theocratic and aggressively capitalist. It is interesting to note that their relations with the Vatican have greatly improved during that time. It is even more interesting to note that so has their relations with supposed anti – Catholic evangelicals such as John Hagee. Prior to this, Israel’s support came mostly from the Christian left and the secularists (who have now largely shifted sides to the Palestinians).

So what does this have to do with Rome? Well, the Roman Catholic Church supports globalism. Always has. Now originally, even after Constantine made Christianity the church of the Roman Empire, the bishop of Rome did not have ultimate authority over the church and considerable influence over state matters. As a matter of fact, no one even claimed that the bishop of Rome should have this authority until Leo the Great in about 450 AD (Constantine’s Council of Nicea was 325 AD), and when he did there was considerable resistance from not only the state but the church also! It was not until 150 years later when Gregory I achieved virtually any of what Leo the Great first asserted for the bishop of Rome, and hundreds of years more until the bishop of Rome achieved primary (though not full) power over the church and enough over the state to crown Charlemagne emperor (by Leo III, the namesake of the first fellow to assert full power for the bishop of Rome).

Leo III had reasons for doing so that fit the modern globalist agenda quite nicely. Not only was there substantial opposition inside the church to the growing power of the papacy, but there was state opposition too. The solution: reduce the number of states! That was the result of declaring Charlemagne the sole political ruler of all of the territories that the church saw fit to lay claim to in the west (the eastern church and its lands was a different, more complex story). All dissenters faced the full force of Charlemagne’s army. This was in the papacy’s interests because even having to deal with one secular ruler that proved to be hostile was preferable to dealing with many rulers with varying degrees of support for and opposition to the bishop of Rome. Propagating the power of the bishop of Rome was what was really important, not the attitudes of a particular leader who incidentally can always be replaced (isn’t that right Saddam Hussein?).

So while the nations of this world still have their powerful armies, that is not where the real power in today’s world lies. No, that power rests with 1) financial markets and 2) technology. And just as it was in the 9th century, the more distinct economic and political entities there are, the harder it is for any one person or group that wishes to assert central authority. Despite what we still choose to call or regard ourselves, the net effects of things like global corporations, economic integration, participation in international governing bodies, treaties, and open immigration is the removal of these distinctions. The result is that when individual nations – and the people in them – have less power, stateless global rulers have more. The best part is that whether you sign your national sovereignty away by allowing EU style full economic integration, with a series of military and economic treaties to the United Nations NATO and similar, having an open immigration policy (or simply refusing to enforce your border and not punishing nations like MEXICO that commits economic and cultural acts of war by actively encouraging, aiding, and abetting their citizens – and anyone else – in crossing it) or by simply handing the keys over to AOL Time Warner and British Petroleum and allowing them to run the show, the end result is actually the same. Anyone who refuses to play ball, it seems, either winds up assassinated or seeing their nations turn into economic and political basket cases. If you have huge reserves of oil, uranium, or gold you can stave it off for a time, but only for a time. Never forget that Pat Robertson did urge George W. Bush to assassinate Hugo Chavez, for instance.

Now the folks behind all this are rather crafty. They know that universal acceptance of this situation in this day and time will not come. So what do they do? They take half of their agenda (say corporate globalization by monopolies) and promote it to the right, and then take the other half (unrestricted immigration and global warming treaties) and promote it to the left. Then contrive (and contribute to) a bunch of hot – button issues (i.e. racism, which these folks contribute to by disseminating racist images of blacks to through the media that causes whites to fear the images and blacks to conform to them … by the way the founder of Black Entertainment Television Bob Johnson became a very rich man in a short time thanks to federal rules forcing cable companies to carry BET on basic cable, and please note that both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have Bob Johnson on their speed dials) that keep the two opposing groups so distracted by emotionalism that its members cannot recognize that they were really advocating opposite ends of the same agenda, and causes them to completely ignore it when both groups push precisely the same thing.

The Democrats that opposed NAFTA when George H. W. Bush first proposed it joined in the mocking of H. Ross Perot and later supported it when Bill Clinton enacted it. And the Republicans that called Bill Clinton a communist traitor for working so hard to get China into the WTO – including evangelicals that opposed China’s persecution of Christians not in their state church – either said nothing or supported George W. Bush’s finishing Bill Clinton’s job of getting China into the WTO. NRA – type conservatives that successfully defeated Bill Clinton’s version of the Patriot Act after the Oklahoma City bombings but were either silent or generally supportive of George W. Bush’s Patriot Act after September 11th, which either the Clinton or Bush administration could have easily prevented. Now these same NRA – type conservatives are almost certainly going to back either anti – gun Mitt Romney or anti – gun Rudy Giuliani because one of them is “the most electable” against the even more anti – gun Hillary Clinton. And so on.

Meanwhile, the various interests groups of these camps that think that they oppose each other are conditioned over time to accept just about anything. For instance, had Jimmy Carter signed welfare reform in the 1970s, there would have been a massive leftist uproar. But after the perceived horrors of the Reagan administration and the threat of Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton was able to invite an overweight black single mother to the welfare reform bill signing without a peep from a single black leader other than Juan Williams. In a similar fashion, had Reagan appointed an openly homosexual man to be his AIDS czar with his vice president refusing to support a political war against gay marriage (and his own homosexual daughter goes on to become “a parent” with her lesbian partner) with Nancy Reagan stating on the Today Show that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, it would have led to an evangelical walkout from the GOP. But Bush does these things and more and evangelicals remain his most loyal supporters, and now prominent evangelical leaders are lining up behind either $50 universal healthcare abortion Mitt Romney who tried to run to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights or late term abortion supporting cross – dresser for gay pride parades Rudy Giuliani. It is also interesting that the frontrunners in both races: Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, are considered “moderates” whose primary function is to get members of their own globalist coalition to accept as much of the agenda of the (alleged) opposing side as possible.

And that goes back to why Huckabee is so hated. Right now, the dogma on the right is that it is completely unacceptable to oppose corporate America even if they replace as many American workers with foreign workers as they can, even if they adopt domestic partner benefits that the government then copies to write their civil union bills, even if they make tons of money by dealing with governments like Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, etc., and even if their CEOs are brazen criminals that loot their companies for billions without any accountability. All Huckabee is doing is stating that, you know, maybe it is kinda sorta OK to oppose how these corporations have betrayed not only your personal financial self – interest but are daily committing acts of high treason against your own nation.

And that is making the GOP leadership apoplectic. MAYBE if evangelicals start resenting corporate America for outsourcing his job to India, relocating his son’s factory to China, and refusing to hire his other son for the construction job that would have paid his way through college or trade school because it can hire an undocumented Guatemalan for 1/3 the price, then they will start resenting corporate America for zealously doing business in these Marxist and Muslim nations that treat Christians so bad. And then MAYBE they will stop associating “Brokeback Mountain” and Madonna with the liberal Hollywood talent and media that produces and publicizes these abominations but the corporations that truthfully owns it all.

If that ever happens, the religious right will start thinking “Why am I so dirty, bruised, smelly, and disease – ridden? Oh, that’s right. I got into bed with the Rockefeller Wall Street Republican Party and then allowed it to do with me whatever it pleased.” And then the whole deal falls apart. Since joining up with the Democrats is not an option, you would see evangelicals leading – or joining – an effort to oppose the very sources that are undermining this nation – and let us face it the evangelical movement with it – that they are currently unwittingly supporting. Do not get me wrong, these people don’t REALLY fear a third political party movement. The multiparty parliamentary systems that Europe, Israel, and pretty much every “democratic” nation on earth have has not inhibited the globalist agenda that I am speaking of; if anything it has made it easier for them. Rather, it appears that what they most fear is a large group of unaffiliated yet active, engaged, and involved people. As a matter of fact, Gary North, a person prominent in the founding of the religious right says in The Silence Of The Fundamentalist Lambs at lewrockwell.com/north/north575.html (please read it even if you disagree with his theological views) asserts that the religious right was founded in large part by the same people who founded the religious left (including the civil rights movement!) precisely to make sure that the then – unaffiliated white evangelical and fundamentalist Christians chose a side. Since these people were successfully manipulated into supporting first Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, it really did not matter which side they chose so long as they picked one.

Now do not get me wrong. Huckabee, who is joined at the hip with the people who represent the worst of false evangelical Christianity (see Ties Between Mike Huckabee And John Hagee Discovered! He Also Has Ties To Kenneth Copeland, Tim LaHaye, And Rick Warren!) is not some contender for righteousness. Quite the contrary, Huckabee supported these people by going as far as to give scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants as a way of inducing their parents to move to Arkansas and work for Tyson Foods. Mike Huckabee also supported the Marxist National Education Association’s war against homeschoolers in Arkansas (see here and here). Now please note that Lew Rockwell is a pro – Ron Paul outfit and I regrettably have had to cease supporting him, so view it in that context, but everything that they say about Mike Huckabee is still nonetheless true. The national homeschool association endorsed Huckabee, but this was their reasoning: “When you understand he’s a Baptist minister, you don’t have to ask what he stands for.” With such logic the anti – Christ would be well – pleased! But it is very possible that the RHETORIC of Mike Huckabee might open some evangelical eyes that the GOP would rather remain wide shut.

Then again, it could be part of the game. After all, illegal immigration fighter Tom Tancredo, after helping scuttle an immigration deal that would have shut down the border over the fantasy that we could actually identify and deport 15 million illegal immigrants or even get most of them to voluntarily repatriate to Mexico, did endorse Mitt Romney yesterday. Calling it amnesty is one thing, calling it logistical reality is another.

Is The New Evangelicalism Any Worse Than The Old?

The New Evangelicalism By Jan Markell www.olivetreeviews.org

When I first filtered into an evangelical church at the age of 14, defining the term “evangelical” was simple, even for a kid my age. Without having to be told, I concluded evangelicals preached a solid gospel, emphasized evangelism and missions, majored in soul-winning and minored in social issues, abstained from some worldly values, were faithful in church attendance, Bible reading, and generally had a biblical worldview. I was never ashamed of the old definition of “evangelicalism.”

 

Those churches are still around, but something has happened in the last twenty years. New leaders are rising and some do NOT preach a solid gospel yet are called evangelicals. (Did your movement preach a solid gospel?) To me, this says today no one is really sure what “evangelicalism” means. (That is because when your folks were in control of the movement, you never defined it by your own example as it was never an attempt to practice the New Testament faith. Instead, the movement was desired to be a “third way” between the the liberal mainline denominationals and the “conservative” fundamentalists, some of whom you were more disdainful and ashamed of than not only the liberal mainline denominationals but even people who were not Christians at all.) When those leaning left such as Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis are called evangelicals, I can tell we have a new day. (So we were much better off with the evangelical movement being led by conservatives like Mike Huckabee, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Ted Haggard, Ralph Reed, Bill Bennett, and Pat Robertson.) When “Emergent Church” leaders such as Brian McClaren, Rob Bell, and Erwin McManus are called evangelicals, something is a-miss. This is just blatant false labeling. (No, it is appropriation of a label that was false to begin with.)

 

“The New York Times” states, “A tug of war is unfolding behind the scenes over theology –should evangelicalism be a big tent open to divergent views, or a smaller movement with more pure theology?” (I prefer the unstated option #3, which is first trying to make an honest attempt to discern what the Bible is saying to us, and then making an honest attempt at doing it. Is there any evidence that this was ever the primary purpose of the movement popularized by the universalist populist Billy Graham?)

Theology isn’t the only issue. Some of today’s so-called evangelicals are into global warming, immigration issues, anti-war movements, and other causes that were once found only in churches a part of the World and National Council of Churches. (So … churches are not supposed to oppose unjust wars and illegal immigration?) They are involved in ridding the world of AIDS, which is an impossibility but a noble cause, but is it the cause of evangelicals? (This is dishonest. Virtually no one is trying to rid the world of a disease for which there is no vaccine or cure. They are merely trying to prevent the spread of the disease and treat people that have it. The fact that she is hostile to the church doing something about AIDS makes me wonder if she has a cultural bias against the people that disproportionately have it. Well, the lepers faced cultural bias in the time of Jesus Christ too, and Christ healed them.) Or is it just the old social gospel from which evangelicals fled in the 1940s so a few denominations could focus almost exclusively on soul-winning and Bible teaching? (Fleeing the social gospel? Yes. But founding your church based on a selfish hard – hearted partial gospel that ignores people’s human needs and is harsh towards sinners? That is not what Jesus Christ and His apostles preached or practiced, but quite the opposite: they condemned it. Read the book of James: faith without works is dead.)

Now the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has a new leader and he hails from my hometown, Minneapolis, MN. (That people did not leave the NAE when the truth was found out about some of its leaders like Ted Haggard and James Dobson, and so many of its leaders are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and take money from Sun Myung Moon … well that is your own fault.) He states that issues to be addressed by the NAE include human rights, creation care, justice and compassion for the poor, torture, and seeking peace in the world. Isn’t this the organization that should be reminding the world that it is racing towards judgment and there may not be a lot of time to repent? It sounds like making the world a better place to live is the new “great commission.”
(No, we should be doing what Jesus Christ and His apostles told us to do in the New Testament. If certain people are erroring by wanting to do more, your error is worse because you want to do less.)

 

I am very uneasy when “evangelicals” remind me of social gospel leftists and when sound theology is replaced by feelings and experience. (So what, you were feeling “easy” before? You were in your little comfort zone before? Well, when I read the New Testament, what I see is that the gospel is supposed to make you uneasy, to take you out of your comfort zone, to cause you to do things that you would not ordinarily do. The rich young ruler was made uneasy by the gospel too. Herod was made uneasy by the preaching of John. I really am not seeing much of a difference between erring on the right side or erring on the left.) Or when once-sound theologians applaud the new “Christian mysticism” and rally around “unity.” (And who are these once – sound theologians? Billy Graham? Robert Schuller? A lot of these guys have ALWAYS had problems. The only thing that is going on now is that they have crossed some little cultural line in our minds that have forced us to confront it. Like all the Christians who abandoned Ted Haggard for being homosexual when he had so many other problems.) When church-growth methods take center stage and a church has to have a “marketing approach.” I thought God was the “Marketer-in-Chief” of all churches and ministries. (Sorry, that is the Reformed/Calvinist/fundamentalist predestination/election Christianity that the free will evangelical movement has made a point of rejecting in order to curry a measure of favor with the world as being “moderate”, “reasonable”, and “more compassionate. Even when I was free will evangelical, I couldn’t stand how we were so quick to sell out our more theologically conservative brethren for the respect of the God – haters.) He causes or hinders growth and the spiritual maturity of the body matters far more than growth in numbers.

Old fashioned evangelicalism is on life-support and has been snatched in what the Bible calls an “end-time falling away” (II Thess. 2). I see a new “slippery slope” and enormous compromise, and I will not remain silent. Yet the Lord loves His church. He has not forsaken it. (Again, if this woman’s comments are representative of old – fashioned evangelicalism mindset, then its adherents may not be as bad as Rick Warren or the emergents in a doctrinal,.worship, or personal behavior sense, but it is still not the full gospel that was once given to the saints. And if your spirit does not burn for the teachings that was given in the New Testament, should you examine yourself to be in the faith? How many of you have visited a person in prison, for instance? Or encouraged and prayed for an AIDS or cancer patient? I admit … I have never done such a thing, and that I need to. But quite frankly, people who claim to be in love with that old time religion while exhibiting no desire to do these things or pretending that they are mere side issues scare me. What is the point of taking such pride in believing that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and the final authority if you are not out there doing what the Bible says?)

Distributed by http://www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

Should We Give Drivers Licenses To Ten Year Old Illegal Immigrants Hillary Clinton?

This is inspired by the presidential debate involving Democratic candidates. But what is your answer to my question? Your response “It is illegal for ten year olds to drive cars.” Well it was also illegal for this theoretical ten year old to enter this country in the first place, and by he is continuing to break the law by his mere presence. So why allow or facilitate lawlessness in one area – giving drivers licenses to people that are breaking the laws by being here in the first place – while forcing the criminal to be 16 in order to comply with another? And why should the law that you need to be 16 in order to get a drivers license apply to American citizens if the immigration laws do not apply to illegal immigrants? If it is not hypocrisy, it is at least inconsistent.

You might respond: “The age limit on drivers licenses should apply to illegal immigrants for public safety reasons.” I agree. I also propose that the true purpose of all laws should be for protection, public safety, order, and common welfare respectively. Any law that is not for those purposes is not only superfluous but a burden and hindrance by its very nature and should be removed. Further, any law that cannot be enforced to the extent where enforcement of said law serves as at the very least a deterrent against it being broken does not justify its own existence. Finally, the goal of a free society should be for its members to obey the law whenever possible by personal and mutual consent rather than undue coercion for the benefit of all, and that authorities in turn would interpret, apply, and enforce said laws as evenly and fairly as possible. That has been the approach to law ever since its concept ushered in ordered civilization. Or so they tell us.

The reality has generally been that laws are merely rules and adherence to them are optional based upon the whim of the individual, and that breaking certain laws from time to time is virtue. There is a general understanding that certain laws do not apply to certain groups of people. Further, people who advocate the notion that obedience to and enforcement of laws should be even and universal are the very ones accused of fomenting public disorder. The result is that the law, and selective enforcement thereof, is seen as a means to manipulate individual persons and society at large to produce a desired outcome. I should mention that liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, religious people and secularists, etc. all currently do so, have as a major goal altering the political and legal landscape to allow them to do so still more, and profess great shock, horror, and general offense that their opponents wish to do the same.

This state of affairs should surprise no one. It is the world, after all, and people that are of the world are going to act after their own manner. The issue, then, is the exceedingly regrettable fact that a large number of professed Christians are caught up in this same state of affairs, and even produce doctrines and interpret scripture to justify it. The result is that this area is just another where it is impossible to distinguish a Christian from anyone else.

I am not speaking merely of the spiritual imperative for every Christian to obey the civil law and authorities, as scripture inadvertently commands us to with the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ foremost but also the apostle Paul and various others. I am speaking of the exceedingly large number of Christians that take even spiritual laws to be submission optional. Said Christians are, to quote a portion of Jude 1:4, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Again, since Jesus Christ told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21 cf. Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25) flouting government statutes is abusing the grace of God. How much more so do we abuse the grace of God, then, by refusing to obey the Bible, or so much as even studying the Bible so that we might know it well enough to obey it?

The imperative for Christians to live lives governed by and in obedience to the very same Jesus Christ from which they take their name is sadly thoroughly alien to the modern religious mindset. It is considered legalistic pharisaical fanaticism to aspire to obedience for yourself, and oppressive hypocritical oppressive judging to demand it of others. Modern Christianity holds that being such a person makes one a bigger sinner – and one worth only contempt at that – than one who disobeys the Bible on a routine pervasive basis! It would be one thing were the position that a lifestyle of obedience and submission to Jesus Christ was unattainable, and as such the resources dedicated to Christian living should not be chasing after such follies of vanity but should be investing in more realistic pursuits such as charitable works, religious service and ritual, evangelism, worship, and other outwardly quantifiable things, or as it were more inward spiritual goals such as becoming more Christlike, coming into a better knowledge of Christ, making your personal relationship with Christ deeper and more intimate, becoming more spiritual, or seeking after the fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

While all of those things are useful and commendable, how quickly have we forgotten that scripture makes it clear that without obedience all of our sacrifices – in our context our works, worship, and spirituality – are in vain and detestable before God. The clear line of demarcation between those accounted for virtue or vice in the Bible is those that of those who obeyed and those who did not. It is true, many of those that obeyed often failed to initially or intermittently, and even their obedience was reluctant or in ignorance. It is also true that many who initially obeyed failed to maintain it and fell by the way side. And I am also aware that Galatians 3:6 says of the father of the faith “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” and not “Abraham obeyed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness” because we are saved by the faith in Another as opposed to works of our own.

But as James 2:20 says “faith without works is dead”, it is through our obedience that we show that we have faith in God rather than love for ourselves and the world. As such, though Abraham is considered by scripture the model of faith, Jesus Christ is more so the model of obedience. We speak so often in terms of Christ’s being the model of obedience in death by going to the cross. We rarely speak of how Christ was the model of obedience IN LIFE by going through it without sin. Jesus Christ’s being raised from the dead was every bit as the result of His obedient life as it was His obedient death.

But how can we attain the model of Jesus Christ, who was fully God in addition to being fully man? The answer, Christian friends, is that such perfection is not our task, as we do not have to pay for the sins of others with our own blood as Jesus Christ did with His. But make no mistake, our task is very much to try. Obedience to God should be our sole purpose in life: a determined obsession. And we should be comforted to know that we are not alone in our life’s quest. Rather, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit to aid us. The Holy Spirit can help us in so many ways with warnings, convictions, comforts, strengths, and perhaps renewing our minds and taming the passions of our flesh so that we will rarely even desire obedience, as well as to help us resist when we do.

In short, it is the Holy Spirit that helps us to die to self in Christ daily! But in order for it to do so, we have to let it. We have to submit to it. We have to surrender to it. Before this can happen, though, we have to know that doing so is no less than what our God wants of us. But how many of us are aware of this information? How many of you have had it preached to you from the pulpit? Is it mentioned in the bestselling Christian books, self – help guides, inspirationals, and devotionals? Do the conferences and seminars speak of it? Or maybe popular contemporary Christian music? Certainly the Christian movie industry and the Christian magazines in particular. Right? I will say this: if the message is indeed being communicated by these things, the actions of neither the listeners or in many cases even the communicators reflects having heard, understood, or acted upon the message. For purity, righteousness, and holiness does not seem to be foremost on or even at the back of the minds of so many Christians today.

But my point here is not to accuse or to complain, but to invite and inform. If you are a professing Christian, I urge and beg of you to make your profession effectual by committing yourself to a life of obedience. God said in His Word that any thing that you ask of Him He will grant you. So if you ask Him to help you attain a lifestyle of obedience, He will do just that. It is folly for you to even make an attempt to do such a thing without God’s help. God knows this already, and only wants of you to desire it to glorify Him and ask it of Him so that He might be further glorified by virtue of giving you what He already wants you to have. As Jesus Christ said in Matthew 19:26 cf. Mark 10:27 with man, this is impossible, but with God all things are possible, and God can and will make obedience possible in your life if only you submit to Him!

And if you are not a Christian, I ask of you to become one today. Do not be a person given to the lawlessness and disorder of the world, but rather one that seeks after the order and justice of God. Your reward for the latter: eternal life with that same perfect lawful orderly God. Your punishment for the former? Eternal death and destruction in a lake of fire for eternity because eternity will not be long enough for the debt of your lawlessness to be paid to a righteous holy God. So to be reconciled with this holy righteous God, please follow the Three Step Salvation Plan. Do it now for the time to end your lawlessness is presently at hand, and another time is not promised to you.

These Folks Argue That Closing The Border Is A BAD IDEA

www.illuminati-news.com/building-a-dialectic.htm

Ron Paul Interview By A Christian Libertarian

Download file here: RonPaulInterviewLibertarian.mp3. It can also be used if the embedded audio player below does not work.

Ron Paul Interview With Christian Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Download file here: RonPaulInterview.mp3. It can also be used if the embedded audio player below does not work.

To reach Chuck Baldwin: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com and http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

The Libertarian Perspective On Abraham Lincoln: A Corrupt Tyrant

From lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo127.html

A Fitting Tribute to a Corrupt Tyrant

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

DIGG THIS

The August 25 Washington Times reported that an outfit called the ” United States Historical Society,” which had donated a statue of Abe Lincoln to the city of Richmond, Virginia in 2003, was stripped of its tax-exempt status by the IRS. It seems that the main activity of the Society was marketing $875 miniature replicas of the statue and pocketing the profits.

The reason the Society lost its tax exemption is that the erection of a Lincoln statue in Richmond was considered by many Richmonders to be akin to putting up a statue of Hitler in Tel Aviv or of Stalin in the Ukraine. Several affluent and influential Richmonders made it a point to bring to the attention of the IRS the real activities of the U.S. Historical Society. They waged a four-year campaign against the organization and its spit-in-your-face gesture of placing the Lincoln statue in their home town, and they won.

The statue remains, of course, and is managed by the National Park Service, which partnered with the United States Historical Society. The statue is a fitting tribute to Dishonest Abe, now that the sponsors of the statue have been revealed to be, let us say, less than honest and straightforward. After all, enriching oneself and one’s friends while hiding behind a smokescreen of “humanitarian” propaganda is a major part of the Lincoln legacy. (The U.S. Historical Society claimed that the statue would “promote healing” in Richmond!)

Lincoln himself was a corrupt corporate insider and a lifelong mercantilist. The economic policies that he spent his entire adult life championing – protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for railroad and road-building corporations, and inflationary central banking – were nothing but an Americanized version of the corrupt British mercantilist system that the American Revolution was fought to discard. They were all designed to use the powers of the state to benefit a small, politically powerful cabal of (mostly Northern) manufacturers, bankers, and politicians at the expense of the rest of society. They were also designed to enlarge the state by tying all of these powerful interests to it politically. They were all finally adopted, after some seventy years of political debate over them, during the Lincoln regime.

Lincoln was personally corrupt as well. In Lincoln and the Railroads John W. Starr recounts how Lincoln presented the Illinois Central with a $5,000 bill in the 1850s for a single tax case, an incredible sum at the time. The vice president of the Illinois Central was one George B. McClellan, who would become Lincoln’s commanding general early in the war. McClellan refused to pay, so Lincoln sued his own client. When he came to court the Illinois Central’s attorneys failed to appear and he won the judgment by default. Starr strongly suggests that it was a corrupt scheme concocted by McClellan and Lincoln since the Illinois Central, under McClellan’s direction, continued to employ him.

Dishonest Abe invested in land in Council Bluffs, Iowa, of all places, in 1857. To this day this piece of land is known as “Lincoln’s Hill.” When he became president one of his first official acts was to call a special session of Congress to begin work on the Pacific Railway Act that would shower railroad corporations with government subsidies while they built a transcontinental railroad line. When Congress finally passed the bill in 1862 it gave the president the right to decide the eastern terminus of the line. And guess what? Dishonest Abe chose Council Bluffs, Iowa. What a coincidence, and what a good example of political insider trading.

All the big Republican Party gasbags of Lincoln’s time had their fingers in the governmental pie of railroad subsidies. The hate-filled and odious Thaddeus Stevens “received a block of [Union Pacific] stock in exchange for his vote on the railroad bill, writes Dee Brown in his classic history of the transcontinental railroads, Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow. Republican congressman Oakes Ames guided the bill through congress in return for contracts to supply all the shovels for digging railroad beds from Iowa to California. William Tecumseh Sherman was sold land near the railroad line at below-market prices. The massive government subsidies, wrote Dee Brown, “assured the fortunes of a dynasty of American families . . .” They also led to one of the biggest scandals in American political history just a few years later – the Credit Mobilier scandal during the Grant administration. It was all an inevitable consequence of the triumph of Lincolnian mercantilism.

If you ever travel to Richmond and catch a glimpse of this particular piece of government propaganda, think of it as a fitting tribute to a corrupt and brutal tyrant who micromanaged the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians in and around the very city that now is forced to honor him with a life-size bronze statue. All to “promote healing,” of course.

September 11, 2007

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, (Three Rivers Press/Random House). His latest book is Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (Crown Forum/Random House).

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Huckabee Hound: The Face of the GOP “Honor-Killing” Cult

Pro Libertate: Huckabee Hound: The Face of the GOP “Honor-Killing” Cult

Ron Paul Versus Sean Hannity And Bill O’Reilly