The Constitution And The Economy

Walter Williams

Quoting economist Walter E. Williams:

“Thinking about today’s massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy? Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years. During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. … Here’s my question: Were the presidents in office and congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?”

Read more. . . .

Life And Freedom

Patrick Henry

Quoting Patrick Henry:

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Fort Hood Soldiers Murdered By Political Correctness

It is very interesting to me that when the story of the Fort Hood massacre hit the major news outlets, it seemed that the primary goal of the mainstream media was to portray that the 13 dead and 30 wounded were victims of a poor guy who had a psychological break-down. We were told over and over that this incident had nothing to do with terrorism or radical Muslim beliefs.

Now we learn that coincidently he attended the very controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia (2001) at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists. The preacher at that time was Anwar al-Awlaki who has been accused of supporting attacks on British soldiers and encouraging terrorist organizations.

Col. Terry Lee, who worked with the killer, said Major Hasan had said, “Muslims shouldn’t be fighting Muslims.” Back in June, when a Muslim convert assassinated a U.S. soldier at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, Col. Lee said that Major Hasan seemed happy about the event and that he was confronted by other officers.

One psychiatrist recalled a lecture Hasan gave when he was a medical resident at Walter Reed. “It freaked them out.” These lectures are supposed to focus on a particular disease or disorder and recent research or treatment options. Instead, Hasan reportedly harangued the doctors and staff about what the Quran taught about non-believers going to hell, being scalded, beheaded, etc.

The evidence certainly indicates that Major Hasan was committed to radical Islam and growing increasingly hostile to the American military. People were increasingly aware of his ideology and yet he was not discharged from the military.

This was not a sudden psychological break-down. Hasan’s actions prior to Thursday demonstrate that he had thought this action through and made plans. Last Thursday, Major Hasan drove on to the base, smuggling with him two guns, a semi-automatic fn 5.7 millimetre known as a “cop killer”, and a revolver. He bought the fn 5.7 in August from the Guns Galore store in Killeen, across the street from the mosque.

Witnesses say he shouted “Allahu Akbar” — Allah is great! — before opening fire in the crowded building where troops were waiting to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars that Hasan angrily opposed. “Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor,” he reportedly said earlier this year, referring to the U.S. — the country he swore to protect.

The politically correct mindset continues to ignore the nature of the enemy we are facing in radical Islam. It has infected and hindered the conduct of our military and intelligence agencies. If Major Hasan had not been protected as a Muslim by political correctness, he would already have been discharged from the military and this tragic event would never have taken place. Political correctness is self-deceiving and it is painfully obvious that our military leaders have been pressured to enforce political correctness to a greater degree than sound military procedures and discipline.

But, what should we expect? Common sense has been expelled from the halls of congress.

Keith Mathison’s Top Ten Books

Keith A. Mathison (M.A., Reformed Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Whitefield Theological Seminary) is dean of the Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies and an associate editor of Tabletalk magazine at Ligonier Ministries. He is the author of Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?; Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope; The Shape of Sola Scriptura; Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper; and From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology. He is editor of When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism and associate editor of The Reformation Study Bible.

1. John Calvin – Institutes of the Christian Religion.

2. Martin Luther - Commentary on Galatians.

3. Robert Bruce – The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper.

4. John Owen – The Mortification of Sin.

5. The Nicene Creed, The Chalcedonian Definition, and either The Three Forms of Unity or The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

6. F. F. Bruce – The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament.

7. Geerhardus Vos – The Pauline Eschatology.

8. Neil Postman – Amusing Ourselves to Death.

9. J. R. R. Tolkien – The Lord of the Rings.

10. Although it’s not a book, I would encourage every Christian to read and re-read John Newton’s letter “On Controversy.”

Read more. . . .

Journalists Without Shame

From The Desk of Jim O’Neill:

[W]e simply must stop believing the misinformation, propaganda, misdirection, obfuscation and outright lies that the Far-Left has spread, and is currently spreading. I’ll give you a case in point.

The White House is currently spreading the lie that the only reason that any mention of “senior counseling” is in the Obama-Care bill, is because a Republican, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), insisted on it. This is typical left-wing misdirection.

This is what Isakson himself, had to say about it, “The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill. . . .”

And how about the “doctor” at Representative Jackson Lee’s town hall meeting. You know Lee—the Congresswoman who, at one of her town hall meetings, chatted on her cellphone while a cancer survivor tried to speak to her.

It turns out that the “doctor” who praised Obama-Care at Lee’s town hall meeting, isn’t a doctor at all. She’s merely an o-bot for the Far-Left. Perhaps you’ve seen the picture of “doctor” Maria Isabel sitting at her Obama campaign desk, under a Che Guevara flag.

The point here, is that you absolutely, positively, unequivocally, cannot trust anything that comes from the Far-Left and/or the Obama Administration. They’re liars, and they have honed their skill at it to a fine sheen.

So why, you might ask, isn’t the MSM (main stream media) up in arms about any of this (we know why the ACLU doesn’t care). The answer, of course, is that they are for the most part indoctrinated obama-ites. They media might as well be wearing invisible WWOD (What Would Obama Do) bracelets—or more to the point: What Would Obama Have Us Do.

Most of those who ply the trade these days, are pitiful excuses for “journalists.” They have destroyed what was once a respected profession. “Finally…have you no shame!”

Continue reading. . . .

Obama’s “Science Fiction” Advisor

Written by Gary Bauer:

Many people are totally perplexed by the Obama Administration’s push to impose a massive “cap and trade” tax on energy production in the middle of a severe recession. By President Obama’s own admission, “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.” Cap and trade will kill jobs in energy-intensive industries like manufacturing, hike consumer prices on virtually every product, and may well push America over the brink from recession to depression. Why are we doing this? It could well be that President Obama is acting in part on the recommendations of his science advisor, Dr. John Holdren.

CNSNews reports that during the 1970s Holdren was an advocate of “de-development”. What is “de-development”? It’s exactly what it sounds like – a radical idea to destroy America’s economy, especially its industrial base, via environmental regulation. These “progressives” literally wanted to take us backwards in time economically. Don’t believe me? Consider this passage from his book:

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

He goes on to label certain technological advances as undesirable, things like “fission power, giant automobiles, plastic wrappings, genetic engineering, disposable packages and containers, synthetic pesticides…”, and adds that “the halcyon days of unquestioning public acceptance of technological ‘progress’ must disappear forever.”

In other words, capitalism is out; communism is in. Government bureaucrats and central planners will provide you a “decent life,” presumably with plenty of candles to light your hut. At least Holdren had enough common sense to understand that his workers’ paradise might present a major challenge to economists. That’s because centralized government planning doesn’t work. That’s why the Soviet Union no longer exists. I don’t want to try to recreate that failed experiment in socialism here.

The Obama Administration, with the support of most Democrats in Congress, is pushing a cap and trade scheme that will redistribute wealth through higher energy taxes on businesses and successful families and greatly facilitate the “de-development” of the United States.

Believe it or not, it gets worse. [Several] weeks ago I told you about Holdren’s support for “compulsory population control laws,” including “compulsory abortion.” Here’s more about his view of human life: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

Did you catch that little nuance? In Holdren’s mind, a living baby “during the crucial early years after birth” is not yet fully human, but “will ultimately develop into a human being.” That kind of dehumanizing rationalization naturally leads one to support “compulsory abortion” and euthanasia. To the central planners, each life is not an asset, but rather a liability to Big Government’s bottom line. The passages in the ObamaCare bill about “end of life” counseling for our senior citizens could have been plagiarized from one Dr. Holdren’s books.

It’s shocking that this man survived the vetting process. Administration officials, including President Obama, should be forced to explain his appointment. Members of Congress should take every opportunity to put this man on the record about his beliefs. If Holdren does not repudiate his own writings, he should be forced to resign.

The Act Of Achievement

Quoting novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand:

“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution — or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.”

Caging Christianity

Written by Gary DeMar:

There are numerous Christians who believe that a personal, private faith is all the gospel requires. Os Guinness described this as “The Private-Zoo Factor,” a religion that is caged so that it loses its wildness. When true Christianity is applied to any part of the world, it blossoms far more fully and colorfully than any other worldview. Contrary successful worldviews must borrow from the Christian worldview in order for them to work. When pagans stopped believing that they lived in “an enchanted forest” and that “glens and groves, rocks and streams are alive with spirits, sprites, demons” and “nature teems with sun gods, river goddesses, [and] astral deities,” at that moment the world and everything in it changed. Everything seemed possible within the boundaries of God’s Providence and law. A Christian worldview made science possible and civil government ministerial rather than messianic. Stanley Jaki, the author of numerous books on the relationship between Christianity and science, comments:

“Nothing irks the secular world so much as a hint, let alone a scholarly demonstration, that supernatural revelation, as registered in the Bible, is germane to science. Yet biblical revelation is not only germane to science—it made the only viable birth of science possible. That birth took place in a once-Christian West.”

Continue reading. . . .

The Alternative To Tyranny

Quoting President Ronald Reagan:

“The Founding Fathers established a system which meant a radical break from that which preceded it. A written constitution would provide a permanent form of government, limited in scope, but effective in providing both liberty and order. Government was not to be a matter of self-appointed rulers, governing by whim or harsh ideology. It was not to be government by the strongest or for the few. Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world — nothing more and nothing less.”

The Salem Witch Trials And Historical Perspective

From the pen of Dinesh D’Souza:

“And the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings? Contemporary historians have now established that the horrific images of the Inquisitions are largely a myth concocted first by the political enemies of Spain-mainly English writers who shaped our American understanding of that event-and later by the political enemies of religion. Henry Kamen’s book The Spanish Inquisition is subtitled “A Historical Revision”, and it is a long book, because Kamen has a lot of revising to do. One of his chapters is called “Inventing the Inquisition.” He means that much of the modern stereotype of the Inquisition is essentially made up. How many people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition? Kamen estimates that it was around 2,000. These deaths are all tragic, but we must remember that they occurred over a period of 350 years. Religion-inspired killings simply cannot compete with the murders perpetrated by atheist regimes. Taken together, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings killed approximately 200,000 people over a five-hundred year period. We have to recognize that atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people.” (What’s So Great About Christianity)

Resolving Disagreements And Conflict Within The Church Congregation

One of the sad realities of church life is that disagreements and conflict seem to be present among Christians just as much as non-Christians. The unity and peace of the Church may be destroyed over the color of choir robes and other “indifferent” matters. Jesus prayed to the Father: 22 “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17) Churches today are still striving to obtain the unity of oneness that Jesus spoke of. We have this high calling to be a witness to the world in our relationships with other Christians. Why is this so difficult and what do we do about it?

14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. . . . God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. (1 Corinthians 12:14-26)

The body of Christ (the church) is made up of many members. The people found in your local church have different talents and gifts. They also have different personalities and backgrounds. They have similar and different problems that they face each day. Each has a personal point of view through which they evaluate what is taking place within the church; and because they are sinners, continuing in need of growth in grace, they each have their own personalized church agenda. Unfortunately, that agenda may not always be Biblical or pursued in a Scriptural manner.

Nevertheless, the church is blessed by the gifts and talents which God distributes throughout the congregation. This same diversity of gifts and people, however, can also be the source of disagreements about how worship and other areas of ministry should be conducted in the body of Christ. We may all be Christians, but we are still works in progress. The level of Christian maturity and holiness varies from one Christian to another. None of us are without sin. Nor do we make the best decisions consistently. Often, these disagreements destroy the unity and bond of peace within the church.

So, what do we do when we find ourselves or the members of our congregation in conflict?

23” So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:22-24)

All conflict within the church must be approached from the teachings of the Scriptures. This is important because our worship of God is spoiled by disunity and unforgiveness.

For instance, conflict is a source of anger which is the response of a person’s frustration with things not going the way he believes they should. His anger may be justified or not. How he handles his anger determines his level of maturity as a Christian.

26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. (Ephesians 4)

Imagine that we disagree with the way a certain ministry is being done or a decision that our church officers have made. What are we to do? Do we remember the commitments we made when we joined our church?

In our church denomination, new members covenant with God and His Church by affirming questions asked in front of the congregation. One of those questions asks: “Do you submit yourself in the spirit of love to the government and discipline of this church, and seek the peace, purity and prosperity of this congregation so long as you are a member of it?”

When we disagree over an issue in the church, we must not forget our vows.

We should also ask ourselves, “Is this disagreement over an ethical/moral issue? Does it concern the truth of the Scriptures?” If it is either, it certainly raises the level of seriousness with which the issue should be approached.

If, however, the issue centers on one way of doing something versus another way of doing it, I would recommend that we tread softly (This is my primary concern in this article. I believe that most disputes within the church are based on personal preferences.). This is when we should ask ourselves, “Why do we join a church?” A person should not become a member of a church for its great music program or because its youth ministry takes the kids on great field trips. We should choose to become a member of a church because of its faithfulness to the Word of God. Otherwise, we have made music or the youth ministry our god (idol).

16 Never be wise in your own sight. . . . 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Romans 12)

8 Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. (1 Peter 3)

5 Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5)

Have we considered that we might be wrong? Have we considered that we have made this issue more important in our lives and thinking than it is to God? Heaven forbid, but it is easy to make such a dispute more important than God and His Word.

Through the church, God builds a Christian community. God desires for us to continue in that community and avoid “church hopping.” A legitimate reason to leave a church (for example) is that the Word of God is not being taught or immorality is openly practiced and the leadership of the church fails to enforce church discipline. The process of settling differences of opinion may be difficult, but when it comes to “indifferent” preferences – we must allow the Holy Spirit to bring us to reconciliation; not winning an argument or getting our way. Through this community, God is using other Christians to shape us for His purposes. A brother in Christ may rub us the wrong way, but God has placed him in our church life for a purpose. We should pray to understand what God is teaching us through His providential care.

17 Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another. (Proverbs 27)

How do we solve disputes with our fellow Christians? Jesus provides us with an appropriate response (even if sin is not involved):

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. (Matthew 18)

What if our disagreement is with a ministry or administrative policy of the church? In this case we should go first to the person who is the immediate supervisor over the area about which we are concerned. This should be done with humility. If this does not resolve the issue, go to your pastor and ask for counsel as to whether you should ask to be on the agenda at the next church officers’ meeting. Ask yourself if you are willing to submit to your church officers’ decision no matter what the outcome. Follow the appropriate steps and remember not to gossip in the meantime.

5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. (James 3)

9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (James 3)

Gossip is one of Satan’s most effective tools – particularly when there is disagreement over an issue in the church. Why are Christians, of all people, so willing to believe the worst about a person or issue before they have all the facts? When another person disagrees with our personal agenda, do we automatically assume they have a character flaw and wrong motive? The fact is that we all, Christians and non-Christians, continue to have character flaws throughout our lives. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. Yet, we ignore our own character flaws because we are self-centered and we try to hide behind the flaws we so quickly point out in others in order to keep our own selfish motives from being revealed.

Without the facts, some people in the church will sadly spread and believe the most vicious rumors without checking directly the facts for themselves. Instead of going to the persons directly involved and getting the whole story, there is too much of a tendency to accept second hand information as the absolute truth and then go about sharing it as a “prayer request” with others. How many church officers have been confronted by a disgruntled member of the congregation accusing someone or some practice in a particular church ministry as being scandalous? Then, when the facts are checked, the complaint is found to be false because the accuser did not know all the circumstances and facts. The disgruntled member failed to go directly to the person responsible and check the facts.

What do we do when we find out that we have repeated false accusations or rumors to others? Do we go to each person we spoke to afterwards and ask them to forgive us for spreading lies? Do we go to the person who was the subject of our illegitimate rants? We should. We should fall down on our knees and ask God to forgive us for slandering our fellow Christians.

14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1)

Have we prayed for God to change the person or persons’ minds we are in disagreement with or to please change us? Are we allowing the circumstances to help us grow in our Christian maturity and faith? Have we prayed for reconciliation, unity, and peace in this matter? Have we prayed for God’s Will to be done? Are we willing to accept God’s Will?

9 “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread, 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6)

Do we personalize our disagreement into a dislike of the person or persons involved? Mature Christians separate their feelings towards the person from their feelings about a disagreement. We must be willing to believe that a person has honorable reasons for disagreeing with us.

5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (1 John 5)

If we are experiencing conflict within our church, we must examine ourselves and our motives. We must humbly accept the possibility that we could be wrong or the issue is really an “indifferent” (unrelated to ethics, morals, or Scriptures) matter that may not be as important as we think it is. There may also be many other ways than our’s for dealing with the area of concern.

Problems in the church can be resolved when we allow ourselves to be guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. We may also begin to see that what we think of as a problem is not really a problem at all. If we are truly submitted to the authority of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we may see that the problem is really us. We have been declared justified by God and yet we all continue to sin. Let us not forget to remove the plank from our own eyes before we begin surgery on someone else with a sharp tongue.

.1 Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity! (Psalm 133)

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17)

Just as Christ prayed, we should always pray for our church, its officers, and the congregation. We must pray for the peace, purity, unity and prosperity of our church consistently. We must remember to ask God to conform us to His purpose in order that we may be useful members of the body of Christ. God is faithful.

29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (Ephesians 4)

If we follow the Biblical principles above, will we still experience conflicts and disagreement within our church? I am certain that we will. However, if these Scriptural teachings are taught and consistently applied in our churches we should experience these problems less. Christians are not a perfect people. On the other hand, should problems arise; mature Christians will quickly resolve them by applying these Biblical teachings.

Cap And Trade Socialism

A study recently published by a group of scientists in the Journal of Geophysical Research has documented that any climate change that has occurred in the past several decades is a result of Mother Nature, not your neighbor’s carbon footprint. “The surge in global temperatures since 1977,” says the study’s co-author Chris de Freitas, “can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Nino conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Nina conditions less likely.”

Yet Al Gore and his cronies continue to vilify all of us “deniers” as they try to push their cap-and-trade programs and the rest of their socialist agenda. It brings to mind another quote, one from the late writer H.L. Mencken: “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” Whether it applies to global warming, health care or a host of other issues on today’s political table, it appears Mencken is right on the money.

Scofield’s Redirection Of The Church

Cyrus I. Scofield

From the pen of Gary DeMar:

A cursory reading of the Fundamentals, a series of papers published in 1917 to define the fundamentals of the Christian faith, do not deal with an evangelical evaluation of social reform. There is an article in the Fundamentals that criticizes reforms as modernists developed them, but nothing is offered to replace these social-gospelers. Of course, it was about this time that the dispensational view of eschatology was making its way on the evangelical scene and its doctrine of the “imminent” return of Jesus. Cyrus I. Scofield’s (1843–1921) note-filled study Bible was first published in 1909 and later revised by Scofield in a 1917 edition. Dispensationalism is all about what happens after the rapture of the church. Our time in the “parenthesis” is only temporary. The church is God’s afterthought, His “Plan-B” after His plan-A failed.

The earlier reform worldview espoused by the revivalists “was replaced by an eschatology that looked for the return of Christ to rescue the ‘saints’ out of this world. Premillennial teaching implied that the world was in such bad shape that it would only get worse until the return of Christ. Some even argued that efforts to ameliorate social conditions would merely postpone the ‘blessed hope’ of Christ’s return by delaying the process of degeneration.”

The vision was now one of rescue from a fallen world. Just as Jesus was expected momentarily on the clouds to rapture his saints, so the slum worker established missions to rescue sinners out of the world to be among those to meet the Lord in the air. Evangelical effort that had once provided the impulse and troops for reform rallies was rechanneled into exegetical speculation about the timing of Christ’s return and into maintenance of the expanding prophecy conferences. . . .

Read more here. . . .

In Defense Of America

John Bolton

Quoting former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton:

“Today, many in Congress are again saying they are outraged at the possibility of ‘targeted killings’ of al Qaeda leaders by U.S. intelligence operatives. Why this should be so is puzzling. America’s military forces have properly and legitimately been hard at work killing terrorists and destroying their capabilities since the murderous attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Obviously, however, in the war on terror, al Qaeda leaders do not conveniently dispose themselves on military battlefields, so the intelligence community’s clandestine efforts appear perfectly suited to the ‘war in the shadows’ that terrorists typically employ very well. Surely the terrorists care little whether they are being killed by CIA agents disguised as peasants or by grunts in camouflage uniforms and dirty combat boots. America was attacked with deadly force on Sept. 11 and before, and we are entitled to respond in self-defense, including using deadly force, until the threat from the terrorists and their state sponsors is ended. These are principles both moral and legal in the United States. Americans think their government should provide for their ‘common defense,’ in the Constitution’s phrase, and they have little patience with politicians who cringe at taking the necessary steps to do so, in both defense and intelligence.”

Read more. . . .

Government Financed Security Is Paid By The Loss Of Freedom

Quoting President Ronald Reagan:

“Remember that every government service, every offer of government-financed security, is paid for in the loss of personal freedom. … In the days to come, whenever a voice is raised telling you to let the government do it, analyze very carefully to see whether the suggested service is worth the personal freedom which you must forgo in return for such service.”

What Defines A Right?

From: The Desk of columnist Rich Hrebic

“Isn’t the point of the Democrats’ push to reform the health care system based on establishing health care as a right? That’s what the politicians say of course. But in reality the result will be the exact opposite. Part of the problem is that most Americans don’t understand what a right is. A right is not a guarantee that the government (i.e., other people) will provide you something for free. We have the right to engage in religious expression, but that doesn’t mean that the government pays for the construction of the church. We have the right to peacefully assemble, but the government doesn’t promise to supply your transportation. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but don’t expect the government to provide you with a free firearm and bullets. You have the right to free speech, but the government won’t grant you free radio or TV air time. What makes something a right is not whether the government can force somebody else to pay for it. What defines something as a right is whether the government can or cannot prohibit you from doing it.”

Read more. . . .

A Warning From The Past

Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville considered the Constitutional powers possessed by individual American states to be the key to the future success of our nation as a whole. His 1830 assessment of America’s federal system is eloquent and is specifically relevant to our nation’s current state of affairs. The following are his words:

“One cannot imagine to what extent this division of sovereignty serves the well-being of each of the states of which the Union is composed…. As the sovereignty of the Union is hindered and incomplete, the use of that sovereignty is not dangerous for freedom. Neither does it excite those immoderate desires for attention that are so fatal to great republics. As everything does not necessarily converge at a common center, neither does one see vast metropolises, or immense wealth, or great misery, or sudden revolutions there. Political passions, instead of spreading in an instant over the whole area of the country like a sheet of flames, break against the individual interests and passions of each state.”

When The Church Has Been Trained To Laugh

From the pen of Greg Gilbert:

On September 16, John Piper spoke to a large conference of the American Association of Christian Counselors. He decided to start the message by confessing a list of sins he had struggled with all his life. Here’s the result. Listen to the first five minutes and then read on after the jump:

Turn up your sound and listen here. . . .

Do you see, at root, what had happened at that conference? Over the course of a couple of days, those conferees had been trained to expect humor from the speakers and therefore to react to the speakers with laughter—all the way to the point that they were incapable of seeing that John Piper was being serious in his confession of sin to them. You can quibble with whether the first couple of Piper’s statements were (unintentionally, it seems) kind of funny. I happen to think they were. By the time he gets to about the 3-minute mark, though, there’s nothing funny left, and he’s moved into very serious stuff. Yet the atmosphere of humor and levity at that conference was so thick—the training so complete—that the people were incapable of seeing it. So they laughed at Piper’s confession of his sin.

Apparently the conditioning of that audience to think everything is funny took no more than a couple of days.

How deep do you think that conditioning would be for a church who sat under a funny-man pastor every Sunday for fifteen years?

Read more. . . .

Medical Price Controls

Thomas Sowell

In The Words of Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell:

“Politicians can throw rhetoric around about ‘bringing down the cost of health care’ or they can even throw numbers around. But the numbers that politicians are throwing around don’t match the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office finds when it analyzes the hard data. An old advertising slogan said, ‘Progress is our most important product.’ With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. … Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off an on, for thousands of years — repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?”

The First Principle Of Association

Thomas Jefferson

Quoting Thomas Jefferson:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

The Arrogance Of Power

From: The Pen of John Stossel

“Suffice it to say that if government attempts to control our total medical spending, sooner or later, it will have to control us. … Like the politicians, most people are oblivious to F.A. Hayek’s insight that the critical information needed to run an economy — or even 15 percent of one — doesn’t exist in any one place where it is accessible to central planners. Instead, it is scattered piecemeal among millions of people. All those people put together are far wiser and better informed than Congress could ever be. Only markets — private property, free exchange and the price system — can put this knowledge at the disposal of entrepreneurs and consumers, ensuring the system will serve the people and not just the political class. This is no less true for medical care than for food, clothing and shelter. … The belief that [politicians] can take care of us is rank superstition. Who will save us from these despots? What Adam Smith said about the economic planner applies here, too: The politician who tries to design the medical marketplace would ‘assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.’”

Read more. . . .

American Youth Should Never Forget

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

Quoting Justice Joseph Story:

“Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capacity, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence.”

The Flames Of Liberty

Quoting Thomas Jefferson:

“[T]he flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.”

Satan’s World

Written by Gary DeMar

Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), homeschooled by his father, minister in the Dutch Reformed Church, prime minister of the Netherlands, editor of the newspaper The Standard, president of the Free University of Amsterdam, founder of the Anti-Revolutionary Party, and prolific author, said, “there is not one inch of creation of which Christ doesn’t say ‘Mine,’” Too many Christians, by default, ignorance, or choice often choose “there is not one inch of creation of which Satan doesn’t say ‘Mine’” with the result that the church of Jesus Christ has ceded territory to the devil in the name of biblical Christianity.

There are many Christians who see no direct relationship between their Christian faith and business and politics and everything else. It’s not that they are hypocrites . . . It’s more likely they were taught that the Bible does not apply to their larger world, certainly not when it comes to law, economics, business, and politics because there is a fixed sacred-secular divide. The pastor does not address politics from the pulpit since Jesus didn’t get mixed up in politics, there’s a separation between church and state, our citizenship is in heaven, politics is dirty, you can’t impose your morality on other people, we don’t want to offend people, we’re told not to judge, we are to render to Caesar, etc. As a result, Christians often adopt the broader culture’s version of the role the State plays in our lives, and it’s a dangerous and ever expanding role.

The State is neither demonic nor messianic. Believing in either one can have the same result. By believing the State can save us with its programs and laws, we give up more power to the State in hope of seeing extended positive results. By claiming the State is demonic, we withdraw from civil government with the result that the State becomes a law unto itself with ever increasing authority and power.

Read more. . . .

O’Reilly Versus Dawkins On Christianity