tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63001049420067209932024-03-13T20:02:12.933-07:00THE CONFEDERATE BAPTISTThe revived Old Baptist Periodical published during the Civil War by my Third-Great Grandfather!R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-32172476517123291752014-03-03T08:49:00.002-08:002014-03-03T08:49:12.917-08:00Is the U.S. Civil War Still Relevant Today?<div style="text-align: justify;">
It has been 150 years now since the Civil War has ended. That's a long period of time! It is at least 7 or 8 generations ago. So you would think that after all that time, it would be something that is no longer relevant. You would think that people would let "by-gones be by-gones." But even though that horrible conflict was so long ago, there are many today who are still bitter over it, as the following article reveals...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.people-press.org/2011/04/08/civil-war-at-150-still-relevant-still-divisive/">http://www.people-press.org/2011/04/08/civil-war-at-150-still-relevant-still-divisive/</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What do you think? Is it revelant today? And isn't it odd how often President Obama likens himself to Abraham Lincoln? Is there a reason for this, some sort of secret agenda? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll let you decide for yourself, but you should educate yourself. One of the best sources available of the true facts of the brutal war is the following publication entitled, "The Un-Civil War." It can be found by going to...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.ashevilletribune.com/un-civil/uncivil-war.html">http://www.ashevilletribune.com/un-civil/uncivil-war.html</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you desire to buy the work, you will have to email the electronic address listed there. It is under 10 dollars and is highly worth it. For the times in which we live today have much in common with those exact times in which our forefathers lived. Let us hope, yea, pray that we won't see another war in our lifetime within our borders. For war is an awful thing! May we rather have a revival of knowledge which will unite us around freedom and liberty, rather than imprison our minds in bondage to ignorance and a false understanding of history.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-13749347743148939182013-07-06T09:34:00.000-07:002013-07-06T09:40:57.449-07:00Life, Liberty, and What?<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not too many Americans today read the Declaration of Independence. Those that do, usually don't read the whole thing. But many can recite the words: "life, liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS," often quoting those words over and over as a justification of certain things they do that makes them <em>happy. </em>They believe they have a <em>right</em> to happiness and to do what ever makes them happy. But did you know those were not the original words penned by our founding fathers? And did you know that the term "pursuit of happiness" had a very different meaning back then from what it does today? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When first written, it appeared as "life, liberty, and PROPERTY." But those words were later changed. Why was this? The reason being that at the time the Declaration of Independence was written, "<em>the pursuit of happiness</em>" was a synonym for owning THINGS, specifically one's own <em>property</em>, whether it was land, vessels, assests, etc. It was understood that owning <em>property</em> made a person <em>happy</em>. And to be secure in owning one's own property was what made society moral. People worked hard to buy what was there's, and their hard work made them happy when they were finally able to buy what they desired. It was a MORAL ideal. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The government was not formed to <em>PLEASE</em> people and cater to making them <em>HAPPY</em>, rather it was organized to <em>PROTECT</em> man's rights to own whatever he pleased, and sought to make sure that those things would not be taken away from that individual by others. It was to protect the rights of individuals to own PROPERTY, not to overthrow the rights of others just to make them HAPPY, which is what we are seeing in America today. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over the years, people forgot the meaning of words. And because of this, people's <em>own property </em>was eventually confiscated in America. And it still is today in the name of "security." It is a complete reversal of the original intention of the phrase "pursuit of happiness."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today, the government thinks that "pursuit of happiness" means that it is their job to make sure people are <em>happy</em>, and they must do whatever it takes to make certain groups <em>happy</em>. But this is NOT what the founding fathers wanted!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No one is guaranteed happiness. You are either happy or you aren't. What makes you happy? Being able to do what you want, as long as it's not against the law, or doesn't hurt anyone else. This is called FREEDOM or LIBERTY. And when one is truly free, then and only then can he be happy. So, what makes a person truly free? The Declaration of Independence tells us the answer. According to that document, it is a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to own property, and this right is to be protected by the government. God set this up, and the government is supposed to follow God in making sure this right to ownership is not infringed. It is man following God to protect man's God-given right to ownership. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, in a Communist society, the ownership of <em>property</em> is forbidden, thus, no one can be free. And as we look at "property" versus "the pursuit of happiness" we find that one breeds <em>liberty</em>, while the other begets <em>oppression</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today, the meaning of "pursuit of happiness" is construed by many to mean that whatever makes one happy is what that person should have the right to do it. And, because of this we have many people desiring to have "special rights" to do or commit certain immoral acts, claiming it makes them happy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A prime example is that of gays who now desire to be married. Why? Because it will make them <em>happy</em>. But they don't realize that this is something that God is very much against. For gays to claim Gay Marriage as a right under the guise of "the pursuit of happiness" is very foolish, for when we read the context of the Declaration of Independence, we find the following: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.</em>"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here, God is called the CREATOR, and the GIVER OF RIGHTS. If this be the case, then why would anyone think that the words "pursuit of happiness" mean that it is God who allows a certain right to someone even though he writes against that very thing in his own Book, the Bible? In the Scriptures, God says that marriage is only between a man and a woman, period. So how could anyone who is gay claim that God gave them the <em>right</em> to marry because it would make them <em>happy</em>. What about God? Did anyone think to ask if it would make HIM happy?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And why stop there? If it makes gays happy to marry, then what about what makes others happy? What if it makes a man <em>happy</em> to rape many women? Shouldn't he have the right to do so? What if it makes a man <em>happy</em> to molest and murder children? Shouldn't he be allowed to do so, according to the same logic? What about the cannibal? Shouldn't he enjoy the taste of human flesh, especially since it makes him <em>happy</em>? And what about the serial killer? Doesn't it make him <em>happy </em>to mutilate and massacre his fellow man? And shouldn't his "rights" be granted him, as he endeavors only to work towards his own personal <em>pursuit of happiness</em>?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think you know the answer to these hypothetical questions. Just because something makes someone <em>happy</em> doesn't mean that it's right. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To claim that "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence means that all people have a right to do whatever they want as long as it makes them happy is a huge fallacy. That is not what that document means! Especially when what people claim makes them <em>happy</em> is something that is immoral and against God!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We must therefore understand the meaning of the word from a 18th Century mindset. "The pursuit of happiness" means to do right and to prosper by so doing, and enjoying the fruit of your labours. It is not petitioning the government to give you special rights to do something that is harmful to yourself or society!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When first penned, the words were "Life, Liberty, and Property." But, they were changed. Sadly, this change has led to the downfall of America. For people mistake "happiness" with "freedom." But what makes you happy isn't always what's best for you, nor is it always moral, and sanctioned by God. True happiness, is doing what God wants, and enjoying the fruits of a moral society.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-80564780900791465252013-05-15T07:21:00.000-07:002013-05-27T07:44:22.692-07:00Remembering "Stone Wall" Jackson<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z-HmpJboFLY/UaNrv5QeEPI/AAAAAAAAAEY/9fsxEUrE-jY/s1600/Computer_Chaplain_Picture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z-HmpJboFLY/UaNrv5QeEPI/AAAAAAAAAEY/9fsxEUrE-jY/s320/Computer_Chaplain_Picture.jpg" width="214" yya="true" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Creighton Lovelace, modern Confederate Chaplin</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
REMEMBER JACKSON</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By: Creighton Lovelace</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pastor, Danieltown Baptist Church of Forest City, NC</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Chaplain, Moses Wood Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp #125 of Gaffney, SC</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">My SCV Camp's Confederate Memorial Day observance was held on May 11, 2013. Now, each year around this time as I head out to check on several resting places of local Carolina Confederate heroes, I cannot help but think about the death of General Stonewall Jackson, which happened on May 10, 1863.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 13px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">It was this great Christian general who uttered, while on his deathbed, those immortal last words: "<em>Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.</em>" For many Southerners, the question has been which river? As a Confederate, my heart can only tell me - the Potomac River. Capture the Yankee Capital and force an end to the War! However, as a Christian, my heart can only tell me - the "Spiritual" Jordan River. It is this river that the young brave Southern Patriot - Sam Davis (for whom our SCV Youth Camps are named) - sang about some 6 months after Stonewall's death, on the evening before his own hanging. We Christians sing the song Sam sang: <i>"On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand, And cast a wishful eye, To Canaan’s fair and happy land, Where my possessions lie."</i></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 13px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Again, remember, General Stonewall Jackson said in his dying breath: "<em>Let us cross over the river...</em>"</span></div>
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
The Jordan River has become a symbolic understanding or a euphemism for death. One day we will die. The Scripture tells us plainly in Hebrews 9:27<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.</strong>" </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">The great General said on another occasion: "</span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me.</em></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">" </span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We all have an appointment, one day, to cross the river, in light of that </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>fact</i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">, knowing that death could come at</span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><b> any</b></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> moment for </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>any</b></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> one of </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>us</b></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> - in our sleep, while driving, the Lord knows when - </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>I ask you: are you ready? </b></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">The General was correct when he said: "</span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>be ready</em><strong>.</strong>"</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">For recall again, Stonewall said with the last breaths of air: "<em>...rest under the shade of the trees.</em>"</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">In his book called: All the Last Words of Saints and Sinners, Herbert Lockyear recorded the gut-wrenching last words of a lost man named Adams:</span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><i> </i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>"I'm lost! Lost! Lost! I'm Damned! Damned! Damned forever!"</i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> His agony was so terrible that he tore his hair from his head as he passed into eternity." Again, in the pages of the Bible, we known there was a </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>"certain rich man" </i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">which means he really lived and that the account is no mere tale, but </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>real.</b></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> In Luke 16:23 the Bible records that this Rich Man was in Hell and he lifted up his eyes and cried to Abraham in verse 24: </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>"</em></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.</strong><em>"</em> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">For 2,000 years, while men and women have walked the face of this earth, the Rich Man has been in Hell screaming for just a drop of water. In Hell, he has had </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>No Rest. No cooling water, air, or shade.</b></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> Torment for eternity. That is </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>not</b></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> the eternity God has in mind for you. He wants all people to come to Christ and to know Him as Saviour. Acts 16:31a states: </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>"</em><strong>Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be </strong></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>saved...</strong></span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>"</em></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><i><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</i></span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Jackson has had rest these past 150 years in Heaven with his Saviour. When you cross the river, will you be able to rest? What will your last words be? I pray, dear reader, that you know Jesus as your Saviour. If you don't I would be happy to introduce you to Him. God Bless.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
</span></span>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-58239208432600707392013-05-10T06:11:00.000-07:002013-05-27T08:33:59.827-07:00The word "FREE"<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a word in the English language that once meant so much to so many. That is the word "free." It is the root word for "freedom," which is something all Americans longed for and believed they had after the great Revolution and under the new constitutional republic. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When North America was first populated by Europeans in the 1600's, it was begun by people who wanted <em>freedom</em>. They wanted to be free of monarchal rule and run their own lives. Some sought religious freedom, desiring to be <em>free </em>from denominational dictators and religious persecution. Thus, they took the chance of crossing the Atlantic to build a home for themselves and a Church. They knew what true freedom was. It was distance between themselves and those who sought to subjugate them. It was living in a society in which evil was far away and liberty was openly preached and practiced.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Later, as time went on, more and more people came to the New World seeking freedom. They too, wanted <em>to be free</em> to do their own thing, make their own way, and choose their own destiny. America soon became the envy of the world. Why? Because of <em>freedom</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But have you ever noticed that the word "free" has two different and distinct definitions? To <em>be free </em>is to have liberty to do what you want, when you want, how you want, where you want. But the word <em>free</em> also means to <em>get something</em> for nothing. Something "free" is something given with nothing expected in return. It's a gift!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How odd, then, that the word "free" can mean two different things. The first is in the context of "<em>freedom</em>" and that is something that is <u>not</u> free here on earth. To be free physically, one must <em>fight</em> against those who seek to enslave. One famous person once said: "<em>The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.</em>" That is to remain free, one must always be looking over their shoulder and watching for those who seek to take away their freedom. The truth is there are many out there who despise <em>true freedom</em>. In fact, they are so self-righteous that they believe people are too stupid to be <em>free</em>. They believe only <em>they</em> can help people make the right choices, acept the best decisions, and guide humanity down the right path. But who are they? Such people are nothing more than "Dictators" and "Tyrants" who desire to steal people's liberties.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What's strange is how they seek to do it. They too use the word "free." But they mean it in a different context. For the way that tyrants and dictators have always sought to steal man's true freedom has always been through trying to give them something for "<em>free</em>" until the person becomes entirely dependent upon them. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In ancient Rome, Caesar gave away suits of clothing and 20 pieces of gold to those who would vote for him. Why did he do this? To gain power. Who wouldn't vote for a guy who gave him this for "free?" The only thing was it wasn't really "free." For it took away a man's "freedom" to vote for whom he wished of a pure conscience.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Throughout history we see example after example of kings, presidents, despots, generals, etc., all taking away men's freedoms all under the guise of giving them something for "free." During the Revolutionary War the English promised great tracts of land to loyal English subjects who fought against the Colonists. The idea was they would trade their <em>freedom</em> for something <em>free.</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
During the great Civil War of Northern Agression, the North claimed to want to <em>free</em> the Slaves, while at the same time enslaving the Southern whites to their system of government and taking away their Constitutional State's Rights, and even the individual rights of free citizens. Some got something for "free" while others lost their freedom. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today we see the exact same pattern. In our country we have a government that desires to take away even more of man's freedoms. They don't desire man to live free, and make their own decisions. rather, they are willing to give out<em> free handouts</em> like wellfare, free cell phones, grants, bail-outs, etc., all with the goal in mind of enslaving such people who will receive them. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The old saying is: "<em>There is no such thing as a free lunch!</em>" This is so true. What might be free for some is definitely not free for others. Someone has to pay for that lunch! Who pays for it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The answer is that TAXPAYERS pay for it! Whatever the government gives for "free" isn't really free at all. Taxpayers have to cover the bill. This means that someone has to work harder to pay for the money that it costs to give something to someone else. Is the person who works harder really <em>free, </em>especially, when he's paying someone else's debt? Has the person who received the <em>free gift</em> really free? Or is he trading his freedom for a handout?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
True freedom is to be left alone by others to do your own thing. When someone is left alone, it falls upon them to either stand or fall. It used to be that hard work paid off in the end, and that the more you worked, the more you earned, and the more you prospered, and the more free you truly were. This is the old maxim. This is how it always worked. But in our modern world that isn't always the same. In fact, it's almost exactly the opposite! Today the harder you work, the more you will be sought out by others who hope to prey on you, and get something out of you. It's easier to just walk around with your hand out and get what you can<em> for free</em>. If man won't help you, the government certainly will, and you are almost guaranteed that you won't be turned down if you seek government assistance. But the more you<em> take</em>, the more <em>dependent </em>you become, and the less free you truly are. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
True freedom is <em>Independence</em>. That's why America began with<em> the Declaration of Independence</em>. It was to assert that they were FREE. It was not <em>the Declaration of Welfare.</em> It did not assert the right to RECEIVE SOMETHING FOR FREE.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, in this crazy, mixed up world we live in, the word "free" means different things to different people. To be free to one person means to be indepenedent, and self-reliant, able to make one's own way. To another, it means to have your needs met without ever having to do anything at all! It's a lifestyle. Actually, it's two different lifestyles. One is that of <em>self-sufficiency</em>, while the other is that of <em>self-decadence</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These two ideas both love the use the word "free." One says, "<em>Let me be, so I can be free to prosper!</em>" The other says, "<em>If it's free, it's for me!</em>" </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How can they co-exist? They answer is they cannot, at least not for ever. Those who get things free will eventually have to pay for it, whether it be by losing their freedom, or losing the free gift itself. You can't keep giving away free stuff without it eventually catching up to you. Someone has to pay for the stuff, and when they find out what they are paying for, they might just stop!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what does the word free mean to you? Do you think of it as in the context of "freedom?" Or do you think of it as in the context of gaining something off the back of others in taking "free" stuff?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On a side note, it is interesting that the Bible uses the term in both contexts explained above. In Mark 7:11 (look it up, I'm not going to quote it here for you. Get your Bible out and look it up!), we read of a person who is "profiting" off their father and mother and taking a free "gift" from them. We read in the end of the verse that such a person thinks they shall be "free." But this is in the context of thinking they will be free from having to pay back their gift. But God speaks of such people in disdain. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet in other passages, like Rom. 5:15-18 (look that up too!), we read of the "free gift" which only Jesus Christ offers, which is the gift of <em>justification</em> or salvation. According to the Scriptures, Jesus Christ DIED for our sins, IN OUR PLACE, PAYING our sin debt for us. And to be saved, it's not by anything we can do, it's only by accepting and believing in what he did for us. This is the only truly <em>free gift</em> that is worth anything. For it is the gift of ETERNAL LIFE. And it is only through this gift that we can find <em>true freedom,</em> for we read in John 8:36 that: "<strong>If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, ye shall be FREE INDEED.</strong>"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>True freedom</em>, therefore, is only through the Lord Jesus Christ and his <em>free gift</em> of eternal salvation. Have you taken this gift? Are you truly free?</div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-85868568810296250292013-03-01T08:19:00.000-08:002013-03-01T08:54:33.702-08:00The Spiritual War between North and South<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many a historian has written a book about the
actual <em>physical battles</em> of the Civil War in which they have theorized the
political, cultural, and ideological reasons for that dreaded conflict. But very
few, if any, have ever pointed out the<em> spiritual battle</em> which lead to that confrontation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But without understanding the spiritual
aspect of what lead to that bloody hostility, one can never truly understand
what that national political feud was all about. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The truth is the North and the South had to very
different religions and two different methods of interpreting the scriptures. Even
Abe Lincoln asked, "<em>How could such a travesty ensue when both sides read
the same Bible?</em>"<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I paraphrase, so
this is not a direct quote).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The answer
is that they did not read it the same way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The South took a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, while the
North "spiritualized" the Bible, and believed it was metaphorical,
not literal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This eventually lead to
division not only in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">country,</i> but
first in the<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Churches</i> within the
nation itself.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The North had a majority of Churches which were
either <em>Universalist, Unitarian,</em> or <em>Catholic.</em><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><em> </em>
</span>The Southern majority of Churches were either <em>Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian,
</em>or<em> Episcopalian. </em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To understand the views of the Northerners vs. the
Southerners, one must understand the teachings of these various sects.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For it was quite often the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ministers</i> on both sides which preached
either against or in favor of <em>slavery, state's rights,</em> and <em>secession.</em> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Preachers on either side were fervent in their preaching,
and passionate about what they believed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Even to the point of becoming rabid, indignant, and even willing to
fight and die for their cause. And both sides truly believed God was on their side. But which side was right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
The answer is easy to find by looking at
their doctrine and their fruit. Unitarians believed that Jesus was <u>not</u>
God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Clearly an anti-biblical
teaching).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They further believed that
man was inherently <em>good </em>and not <em>evil</em>, and thus had no reason for a
Saviour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They finally taught then when a
man did sin, that self-sacrifice and good works were the only way to appease the wrath of God, and secure pardon of their sins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Catholics
also taught this doctrine of "working one's way to heaven."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Finally, </span>Universalists believed in <em>the unifying nature
</em>of their cause, and desired others to join their ranks for the purpose of championing
a cause in which people could rally together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
They believed in preaching "issues" to support, rather than preaching doctrine from the Bible.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These three main Northern religions worked
together in harmony to form radical groups of anti-slavery minions who
eventually called themselves "Abolitionists."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, they not only didn't believe in
Jesus Christ as their Savior, they further refused to accept and follow his
teachings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were, therefore, not
truly Christians, accepting only the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Christian</i>
while denying the <em>person</em> who started Christianity. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The focus, then, of these radical religionists
was on building an earthly kingdom, rather than focusing on the eternal destiny
of man's soul.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And because of this, many
of them turned towards <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">politics</i>,
rather than<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">preaching of the Gospel.</i> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
many of them turned towards <em>physical means</em> to right what they viewed as a great
wrong in the eyes of God--Slavery!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, their methods proved they were not
Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of their biggest supporters,
John Brown, was a "Minister." <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I
use the term lightly, as a true minister would never be a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">murderer</i> as he was).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet he
used physical force and even death to forward his kingdom, something Jesus
would <u>never</u> condone!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The well-known saying
eloquently portrays such religious zealots, when it states: "<em>Kingdom
builders are bloody killers!</em>"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Contrast this with the Southern people and their
religious and doctrinal views, many of which were either Baptist, Methodist,
Presbyterian, or Episcopalian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although
these denominations differ greatly, they all had one thing in common.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They believed all men were Sinners who were
inherently evil, and they needed a Saviour to forgive them their sins, as they
could not save themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And although
some of them had been snared into unbelief by the teachings of German
Rationalism, the majority of them and their ministers believed in a literal reading
and teachings of scripture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
further believed in the deity of Jesus Christ, and viewed Northern religious
instruction to the contrary as not only apostate and dangerous but outright
blasphemous and satanic in origin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus,
they viewed the North as a great breeding ground for Satan's ever-increasing
kingdom of evil, deception, mistrust, and even hatred and hostility.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Southern Ministers viewed slavery as not only
acceptable, but Biblical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And they had
verses to prove it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some would run to
Leviticus 25:44-46, which states:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
44 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Both
thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen
that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>45<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover of the children of the strangers that
do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with
you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>46 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">And
ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them
for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren
the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But these verses spoke to Israel, and did not
apply to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, others read the
words of the Apostle Paul (that do apply to CHRISTIANS in the Church age), dogmatically
stressing the LITERAL application of that passage to them, their servants, and
to the Northerners who had no business trying to tell them how to live their lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From 1 Timothy 6:1-5 we read:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Let as
many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all
honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>2<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And they that have believing masters, let
them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service,
because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things
teach and exhort. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>3<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> If any man teach otherwise, and consent
not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the
doctrine which is according to godliness; </b>4 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of
words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, </b>5<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> Perverse disputings of men of corrupt
minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such
withdraw thyself.<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Taking this passage literally, most Southerners
believed that the abolitionists were "blasphemers," and "apostates"
preaching a doctrine contrary to the scriptures, and were "perverse"
and "corrupt" and "evil" in their attempts at causing "strife."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, to a Southerner, a war against slavery
was a war against God himself and what he taught in the scriptures.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Although God didn't institute slavery, it cannot
be denied that he did allow it and wrote verses in the Bible of how Christian
masters should treat their slaves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Ephesians
6:5 and Colossians 4:1 are other examples of Biblical passages addressed to
slaves and their masters).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Northerners, therefore, turned their attention from
the scriptures towards tales of "mistreatment"
by Slave owners against their slaves and tried to demonize Southerners,
claiming they were all evil men who beat and whipped their slaves and raped
their women servants on a regular basis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But as Christian gentlemen the majority of Southerners never practiced
such horrible atrocities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many even went
to Church with their slaves and treated them with honor and respect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And even though some atrocities did happen by
bad Slave owners (who most of the time weren't even Christians themselves),
they were very few and far between.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> And they were often dealt with by the law and/or Christian Ministers who preached against such conduct. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet the North succeeded in their propaganda and
demonization of the South, and books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" fueled
the fires of outrage in the North.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Satan loved the division he had spawned with the
liberal mindset in the North and their hatred toward Southern Bible-believing
and Bible-practicing Christians. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And he continued
to preach <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">hate</i> toward the Southern
people, stereotyping them, and lumping them all into the same basket as inhumane
mongrels who abused their fellow human beings. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because of such constant belittlement and disdain
from the North toward the South, many Southerners sought succession, yearning
to be free from those who lived only to deride, slander, and attack their
character, beliefs, and culture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the
North would not let up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Believing they
were righteous and the South was evil, Northern politicians began to justify their
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">hatred</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">disdain</i> against the South. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This eventually lead to their unanimous belief
that God himself had called them to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">punish</i>
the South for what they viewed as wrong doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And far before an army was called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">physically</i>
for that intended purpose, the Northern Politicians sought to debilitate the
South<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> economically</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> For this end they </span>instituted the Morrill Tariff,
which was nothing more than a TAX upon the South of up to 47% of their
revenue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Outraged, by such an action, Southerners despised
the Yankees in the North even more, and rightfully so, for not even a
generation before, they had fought a War for Independence over that very same issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is what gave birth to the United
States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was all because of
a nationwide contempt towards "<em>Taxation without Representation.</em>"<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Eventually, the South seceded from the Union, and
it was mostly because Abraham Lincoln said if elected his priority in office
would be to COLLECT the Morrill Tariff from the South.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that's exactly what he tried to do when
he sent Federal ships to Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These ships were full of not only soldiers
but Federal Tax Collectors who were to collect the Morrill Tariff with the help
of the soldiers. (What?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You never heard
this story?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Could it be because the
radical abolitionists rewrote history?)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We all know what happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>War ensued.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But what the war was about depends upon what you know, (or better stated
what you've been taught) about history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If you believe the modern teaching, then you believe the war was started
by the South when they fired upon Ft. Sumter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But if you look at it from the viewpoint of a Southerner, you see it for
what it really was -- A second War of Independence. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some call it to this very day by the deceptive
term of the "Civil War."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
it was anything but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">civil.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, it was atrocious!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not about slavery, even though that
played a key in justifying the war in Northern propaganda.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nay, it was rather about Southerners being
left alone and being free from Northern taxation, Northern religious hatred,
and Federal occupation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In short, the
best way to label that war would be to call it what it really was -- A War of
Northern Aggression. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But way before it was a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">physical</i> war, it was a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">spiritual</i>
battle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The North began their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">crusade</i> against Southern Christians and
Southern Biblical doctrines many years before by attacking the deity of Christ, man's need
for a Saviour, the Biblical mandates of God towards slaves and their
masters, and much more. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Oh how Satan must have savoured the widespread <em>hatred </em>he instilled in Northern hearts and gloried in the savage <em>bloodshed </em>it produced as the ground was littered with the dead bodies of Christian soldiers from each side! (And yes,
there were some true Christians in the North.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And they fought without malice, rather only doing what they felt was
their duty in the Northern Army).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But the joke was on the Devil, for during the
Civil War something happened, that is very seldom mentioned to this very
day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>During the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">physical</i> skirmish and amidst the ghastly slaughter and bloodshed,
God upon his throne in heaven smiled as a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">spiritual</i>
fight took place in the hearts of men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And during the Civil War (better called the "Un-Civil War") in
which the depravity of man was unleashed on a tremendous scale, God, the Holy Spirit, went forth
convicting the souls of men with a mighty power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For during that war there was probably the
greatest revival the United States has ever known, greater than even the first
and second "Great Awakening" in the 1700's.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And during that conflict the Gospel of Jesus
Christ was preached everywhere by godly ministers, Honorable Generals, lowly
privates, and even starving slaves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Spiritual
campaigns and revivals broke out in towns, cities, villages, and even within
the armies themselves on both sides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Men
like D.L. Moody preached with such a furor that men cried and accepted Jesus as
their Saviour by the thousands. The Gospel drenched the land deeper than the
stain of the blood of the fallen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
are countless stories of men laying bleeding and dying on the battlefield,
where one soldier begins singing "Amazing Grace" and then soldiers on
both sides joined in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Witnesses tell us
the singing of hymns were so loud by dying soldiers that it sounded like an
angelic host of heaven had descended upon the earth.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was the Christianity of the SOUTH which spread
abroad and blessed the hearts of men, pointing them to Christ crucified, and
not the religion of the North which sought only destruction, ruin, devastation, recompense, and chastizement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even to this very day the fruit of Southern
Christianity is known world-wide, and has been given a term which endures to
this very day -- "Southern Hospitality."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, even though the battle was won by the North <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">politically</i>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
they are remembered as the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">physical</i>
Victors, the truth is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">spiritual</i>
battle brewed for the souls of men, and many were turned to the grace and
knowledge of God's wonderful salvation during such a terrible and dismal time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Only heaven will reveal how many people came to
Jesus during that dreadful and appalling awful conflict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the war did not end there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After the<em> forced re-union</em> of the Southern
states with the North, the Gospel was carried up into the land of the "apostate
yankees" by countless soldiers, and even many chaplains and ministers who
journeyed there after the war.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
preached the Gospel message in the army of the Lord using the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sword</i> of the scripture with as much
courage and determination as they fought with a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rifle </i>in their respective national armies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They were true soldiers of the cross!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not only that, many went westward
with the Gospel, preaching to Sinners in saloons, ranches, mining towns, cattle
prairies, coastal towns, and schools. And their ranks swelled by leaps and bounds, as
the true Gospel of Jesus Christ spread throughout the country, emboldened by
the great revivals of the Civil War, and more people converted to true Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today seldom is heard of a
"universalist" or a "unitarian."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the entire country has heard of the words:
Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These denominations have endured to this
very day, while the hateful Northern religions have proven
themselves spiritually fruitless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> <span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: x-small;">(*Note:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many of these denominations today are now in complete
apostasy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Truly we are in the last days
as the Bible prophesied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the fact
that they still exist prove that after that great and awful Federal war against
the South, God himself fought and won a spiritual battle and his truth prevailed
and covered the country from sea to shining sea). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let us therefore always remember the cost of
War.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many died, and sadly many went to
Hell because they were unsaved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
thankfully amidst a horrible, bloody, and ghastly war, a spiritual seed was
planted in the hearts of men and even in the entire country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those saved went to a much better place, and
are there today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many of their
descendents preached to others of the same hope they had in Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the Gospel spread to every corner of the
nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many today remember only the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">PHYSICAL</i> War of 1861-1865.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
hope this small article will help to illustrate the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SPIRITUAL</i> battle that took place at the same time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not to build a kingdom on earth,
rather to fill a kingdom in heaven with the souls of men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p> </o:p></div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-81320878327152626322013-02-25T07:57:00.002-08:002013-05-24T06:16:31.419-07:00The Truth About the First American Slave<div style="text-align: justify;">
The United States of America is not perfect, and today we are clearly taught this. History records the many mistakes made by the government of this nation, one of which was the senseless slaughter of many native American Indians. But probably the greatest "evil" in the eyes of many today is that of slavery. Many consider the practice of slavery upon blacks as the single, most deplorable thing in the history of the United States. And because of this, there has long been a long-standing condemnation of the South, and those Southerners who once owned slaves. They further have been "demonized" and scorned to the point of making them appear to "deserve" any type of reprecussions they received during and after the Civil War. So much so, that Sherman's total war policy has even been "justified" by many, claiming the South "got what it deserved" when it was burned to ashes, and then raped and empoverished by "carpet baggers" in the years thereafter during the horrid time of "Reconstruction." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For so many years this idea has permeated the minds of Americans, that they still to this day try to enact upon white people a sense of "guilt" for slavery in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> (Even though it happened over 150 years ago!) </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's not just the South who are viewed as evil for allowing slavery, it's ALL white people, for the Northern Whites where those who wrote slavery into the Constitution and who shipped Africans to America in their own ships to sell on the market to the South.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Thus, if you are white, then you should be "ashamed" in the eyes of many for what your people did in enslaving an entire race of people. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This "slavery guilt" continues to our very day in seeking to "shame" whites into trying to make up for the past. And in so doing, it justifies the political action of giving "special rights" and "handouts" to black people, while excluding whites. But rather than helping heal the past, this has lead to even more racial division, in which blacks are taught to "hate whitey" or "get all you can out of the white man," while whites despise being taxed even more to "redistribute" their wealth to others. In some cases, this racial "welfare" policy has encourageded white people to despise blacks, and want to "segregate" themselves even more from them, as racial division of black and white grows more and more in the United States of America. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some people thought having a black president would finally heal the racial divide, and bring people together as "Americans." They hoped it would cease people viewing others as "African Americans" vs. "White Americans." But the opposite effect in many cases has come to fruition, as racists blacks look at the president as "their president" and racist whites look at him as the prime example of the inaptitude and incapability of blacks to lead. <span style="font-size: x-small;">(Note: Not all people are racist. But there are those on either side who are. That is, there are just as many blacks who hate whites as there are whites who despise blacks. Racism is not one-sided! But what is one-sided is the "guilt" of trying to make whites feel bad for slavery. Whites don't try to make blacks feel bad for anything!)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because of this "white guilt" mentality, we've been taught that whites have no voice and shouldn't be allowed to talk about blacks, their plight, and their struggles. We are further lead to believe that whites can never understand what they went through, and since it's all their fault then we <em>owe</em> black people certain special priviledges, and in some cases even compensation. But what if the entire narrative was not the whole story? And what if white's weren't the only slave owners, but there were black slave owners as well?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today, I read an article by "Ben Kinchlow," a BLACK MAN, in which he gives the interesting story about who the VERY FIRST SLAVE IN AMERICA really was and WHO IT WAS WHO OWNED HIM. The answer may surprise you. For in the articled, entitled: "<u>Father of U.S. slavery was a black man</u>," we read about a court case in 1654 in which the first documented case of BLACK slavery is recorded. And according to the article, a man named Anothony Johnson owned some slaves, (several of which were WHITE by the way), and went to court to prove that he also owned a black slave named John Casor. But there is a twist to the story. Mr. A. Johnson was B-L-A-C-K! And he won the case and was awarded Mr. Casor as his own <em>slave</em> for life!<br />
So, here we have a BLACK man owning another BLACK man and this is the first recorded case of slavery in what now is the United States! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Where is the "black guilt?" It's just not there. Either because of ignorance or willful omission, people have declined to discuss this subject. They want so bad for whites to be the enemy, they have failed to look at the very foundations of slavery, for if they do, they would find a BLACK man as the first slave owner!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To read more about this article and to learn for yourself the truth about the first American slave, go to:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/">http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's time to let go of the "guilt." Blacks and whites should not be enemies. They should not be divided. Blacks and whites are equal under the law. Yes, both are <em>Sinners.</em> But both are also <em>Citizens. </em>Special treatment should not be granted to others because of the color of their skin. We should all be treated alike! Let the past go! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Feel free to comment below...</div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-52358947611919167492013-02-19T08:32:00.002-08:002013-03-01T08:55:50.452-08:00Guilty until Proven Innocent<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think God that in my part of the country (down South) I was actually taught the truth about American History in the classroom. I remember distinctly sitting in class and hearing from the teacher that the "good guys" in the Civil War were the South. But that was not just opinion. My teacher showed me the facts about it. I further remember reading in the textbooks that the war was <u>NOT</u> about Slavery and freeing blacks. It was about <em>STATES RIGHTS</em> and the right for states to govern <em>themselves</em> without having to bow down to tyrannical practices and oppressive regimes who sought to tax one region of the country, while not wanting to extend that same tax to another. I was also taught the horrors of governmental control in the time of "Reconstrucion" when "carpet baggers" pillaged and plundered a conquered people. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was a sad story, but was true. That's why my teachers and the textbooks taught it to me, it was historically acurate.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But even before I heard that sad tale, I was taught about the History of our once great nation. I was taught by my teachers that the one thing above all else that made the U.S. of America great, and set it apart from any other nation on the face of the earth, or in history for that matter, was that in America, people were viewed in the eyes of the law as <em>INNOCENT,</em> until <em>PROVEN</em> guilty. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This meant that we as a society thought the BEST of people, not the worst. And we always held <em>them</em> in high esteem no matter who they were, where the came from, and what they believed. We were all equal in the eyes of the law, we were all <em>citizens</em>, and we all had the same basic rights. But the number one right above all others in our free society was the ideal that a every person was<em> </em>viewed as<em> innocent, </em>until through judical process he was proven (beyond any shadow of a doubt) to be <em>guilty</em>. That is, if someone accused someone else of a crime, then he DARN WELL had to have PROOF of it, otherwise he was in <em>contempt</em> and was a <em>perjurer</em> who <em>proved himself</em> to be guilty of lying. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was a golden age. It was an age of true freedom. For people were polite and often cared for one another. The righteous had no fear of being falsely accused and if they were, they knew the evidence would <em>prove</em> they were guiltless. True fear was only know by the guilty, for if they were caught, they had to worry about witnesses condeming them for what they'd done in a court of law.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Such a law-abiding society makes people want to do right, rather than evil, for there is <em>reward </em>for righteousness and <em>recompense</em> for wickedness.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The early U.S. court system was set up in such a way that it not only protected <em>the righteous,</em> but it also protected <em>the accused,</em> for it might turn out in due process that the accused was innocent all along. Thus, when an accusation was made, the law demanded a writ of "habeus corpus" being presented to the accused, in which he was commanded to be in court for his actions. He was <u>NOT</u> arrested and <em>then</em> dragged to court upon a mere accusation. Rather he was given the opportunity to freely come before a judge. If he did not appear, then and only then was an arrest warrant written and the sherriff sent to apprehend said suspect. But notice he was still viewed as "innocent" until after the verdict of his trial!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Notice how vastly different things are in the United States of America today! Somewhere down the line things have changed. Police now look at anyone who is accused as a "perpetrator." And without a warrant they can arrest said person and lock them up, (in some cases indefinitely without any trail whatsoever). The court case for the accused is not to <em>Prove his innocence</em>, as much as it is to <em>Prove him guilty</em>. And, while he sits for months and even years in jail without release a long and drawn out court case takes place. In other words, in the eyes of the law, the person is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT! And even if he eventually is aquitted and found innocent, he has still been subjected to the tribulations of imprisonment for a long period of time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What a horrid system of law! And what's worse is its affect on society. Under the <em>innocent until proven guilty </em>system, people were viewed as basically good and they were well-respected. But under the <em>guilty until proven innocent</em> system, people now look at one another with disdain and suspicion, immediately thinking the worst of them up front. Many want to believe the person is guilty so they treat them as such. And often, a person <em>accused</em> is a person <em>abused</em> by the police, the courts, society, their own fellow prisoners, and their fellow citizens.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What has become of our nation? Because the government views its citizens through the eyes of "<em>guilty until proven innocent</em>" citizens are always thought of as not capable of making good decisions for themselves. They are viewed in some cases as "possible future lawbreakers and miscreants" and for this reason the Government takes it upon itself to pass laws to FORBID its citizens from doing certain things, fearing they will lead to other things. It's almost to the point in which the government arrests people for "thinking" of a crime, without ever committing it, (this is called "Pre-Crime." See the movie "Minority Report" for more), or better stated, for "thinking" at all rather than just doing what they are told!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Gun control is a perfect example. Crazy people commit gun crimes, and innocent people die. But rather than prosecute <em>them </em>for <em>their</em> crime, the government wants to punish everyone else by taking away their guns, claiming no guns equals no gun crime. But why are those with guns viewed as <em>GUILTY</em> of a supposed crime which they have not done? They have not shot anyone. Thus, they are innocent. Should they not be treated as such? Why should they suffer for the crimes of others?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today, because government wants to take away all guns, many citizens suspiciously view the government through the misguided viewpoint of <em>guilty until proven innocent</em>. They think the worst of them, and wonder what they are planning. Thus, they fear what more they might be accused of in the future, and this breeds the seed of suspicion anew. And rather than both sides viewing the other as INNOCENT until proven GUILTY, they both view each other as GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The system is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers set up. And a society that views each other as potential violators and evildoers is a society walking on egg shells, waiting to explode upon one another. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So which system is the best? Should we view others as "<em>innocent until proven guilty</em>" or should we view people as "<em>guilty until proven innocent</em>." And what does history say about it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, the United States of America before the Civil War (when Lincoln did away with the writ of habeus corpus) was the freest country on earth. This also made it the most prosperous nation on earth. But look at it now. It's just the opposite.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Those nations throughout history who have viewed its citizens as "guilty" until proven "innocent" have always been oppressive regimes. Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, Mussolini in Italy, Mao Tse Tung in China, Kim in North Korea, and many others show us the fruits of the "guilty" until proven "innocent" mentality. Sadly, they all have one thing in common. They never give those they deem "guilty" any chance to "prove" they are innocent, oftentimes just KILLING them instead.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hitler killed 6 million Jews that he deemed <em>guilty</em> of impoverishing the German people. Where was their voice? Where was their trail? Stalin killed 11 million of his own people, many of which were soldiers returning from the war in Europe. Why? Because once they had a taste of war he was afraid they would turn on him with their weapons to free themselves from his oppresive rule. Thus, they were sent to camps to die in Siberia and other horrible atrocities. Where was their voice? Where was their chance to defend themselves? Where was their day in court to declare their innocence? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I could go on and on, but I believe I've made my point. My old teachers taught me right. To view others as "<em>innocent</em>" until they are <em>proven</em> "<em>guilty</em>" in a court of law is the definition of true freedom. While viewing certain people as <em>GUILTY</em> until proven <em>INNOCENT</em> is absolute TYRRANNY! Why? Because labeling someone as <em>guilty</em> just because you want to get rid of them, and then executing judgment on them without them having any opportunity to prove their innocence is the epitome of injustice. It is pure evil.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The United States of America is heading the same way that Russian, Italy, Germany, China, and other nations have if it continues this daming ideal of viewing others as <em>guilty </em>until proven <em>innocent</em>. This is why it's so important to have a society set up on the principle of "Innocent until Proven Guilty." For a person who has done nothing is guilty of nothing. They should be left alone to do their own work and prosper. </div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-35562509592620203072013-01-21T08:13:00.001-08:002013-03-01T08:56:01.831-08:00What exactly is a Terrorist?<div style="text-align: justify;">
We've heard a lot about "<em>Terrorism</em>" and "<em>Terrorists</em>" over the last ten to fifteen years. Almost nightly on the news you hear the word, but what exactly does it mean? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pondering this, I went to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary to find the definition of the word, and I found an interesting thing--THAT WORD WAS NOT IN THE DICTIONARY! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, that word was not in common use until much later. Rather, the terms most commonly used at the time were "Tyranny," and "Tyrant," and "Despotism" and "Despot." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, the word <em>Terrorist</em> is a modern word, only entering into common use in the English language in the last 100 years or so. So, what exactly does it mean?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Studying it out, I found an interesting thing. The word "terrorist" usually means different things to different people! It all depends upon the world-view of those who are perceiving the labelled "terrorist." To some, it's a good thing to <em>terrorize</em> certain people, while to others it's a bad thing. The classic line in one of the Rambo movies illustrates it nicely: "<em>One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!</em>"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A simple definition of a <em>Terrorist</em> is: "<em>Someone who FIGHTS for something, usually a specific cause or ideal that is very dear to their heart</em>." And whether or not the person is truly a "Terrorist" depends upon how he is viewed by society. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A good example of "terrorism" would be that of Nazi Germany. Most of the world viewed the Nazis as <em>Terrorist Thugs,</em> who used violence for world domination. But if you were a Nazi, you thought the true terrorists were the Jews, who were viewed as money-grabbing, uncaring, mongrols who raped your country and your land and stole all you had. Which world-view was right? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Clearly the Jews were <u>not</u> the terrorists, but they were demonized to be so by the Nazi Government. And today we look back on the Second World War and clearly see the Nazis as <em>the bad guys.</em> But what if they had won? What if they had taken over the entire world? Then would not the official position be that<em> the true terrorists</em> were the hated Jews? And would not the government propagate this lie, claiming their rise to power was a "just cause" in order to wipe out the terrorists? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A "Terrorist," then, is defined by those who either demonize or idolize the person who fights for his cause. There are, therefore, two sides to terrorism. One in which the person is viewed as EVIL for instilling <em>terror</em> in the hearts of others, and one in which a person is viewed as JUST for fighting oppression. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A great illustration of this would be the American Revolution in which a Tyrannical King in England was pillaging the American Colonies, and seeking to oppress them even more by taxing them exceedingly. In retaliation, the Founding Fathers fought against this tyranny. But in so doing, they too engaged in acts of <em>terror</em> like the Boston Tea Party. To the King, <em>they</em> were terrorists who needed to be brought to justice, but to the colonists, <em>he </em>(the King) was the Terrorist who terrorized them by bringing his troops to their shores. Who was the RIGHTEOUS and who was the EVIL in this scenario? For years, we Americans have believed the KING was wrong and the COLONISTS were right. But we only enjoy the privilege to believe this because the colonists won the American Revolution. Had they lost, the King undoubtedly would have said he was right and they were "terrorists" rebelling against his authority. (Sadly, this is what many people believe today in our country. I've even heard certain modern law-enforcement instructors saying things like: "<em>The Founding Fathers were the TERRORISTS of their day.</em>")</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So who was right? Who was the real terrorist? Who was evil and who was just?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
About seventy years later, there was another war on America's shores. (The "Civil War.") This time it was not an international war, rather a war within its own borders against it's own citizens. And it was about the exact same issue: No taxation without representation. The North desired to tax the South with the Morrill Tarriff upwards of 40%. The South viewed this as oppressive DESPOTISM and outright TYRANNY, and seceded from the Union. When Lincoln's warships went to Southern soil, they viewed this as a "Terrorist" Act of Agression, and they took back Fort Sumter from the yankees after having given them ample time to vacate the premises. The North looked at this as an act of Terrorism, and an ungodly, costly, and bloodly war insued. You know the rest. The North won, so the official story today is that the <em>terrorists </em>were the Southerners who <em>rebelled</em> against the Union. But ask any a true Southerner who knows anything about that Un-Civil War, and they'll tell you the real terrorists were the North, who raped, pillaged, plundered, and burned the South to the ground, AGAINST the rules of war. And through TERROR they ruled the South with carpet baggers and oppressive leadership. So who was the true terrorist?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Often it's more than just a moral issue of right verses wrong. Often it's an issue of finality. That is, if a person is captured and imprisoned, and his cause falls to the groud with no one else to champion it, then he was a <em>terrorist </em>who fought against the statas quo. However, if the person fights and gains ground and eventually triumps and his cause is accepted world-wide, then he is not a terrorist at all, rather a "freedom fighter" and a "conqueror" who fought valiantly for his righteous cause. (Whether it was truly righteous or not. Always remember that the Victor always writes the history books, and they can make their cause seem just, especially if they win).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, the terms "Terrorism" and "Terrorist" are terms that can be either positive or negative to people. And often they are terms used only to label one's enemies. Who is the real Terrorist is often hard to see. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The real question to ask is: "Is it right to ever use <em>terror</em>?" This is a moral question that needs be answered. That is why both sides in the issue of terrorism should be scrutinized, as often there are two sides to a coin. It's not always clear cut which side is right and which is wrong. Sometimes both are good. Other times, both are bad. And yet in other times, one side is good while the other is evil, or vice versa. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is interesting, however, as I found in my study of the word, that today the words <em>terrorism</em> and <em>terrorist</em> are often used by governments in a political sense. And they are often used to curb free speech and intimidate people into submission. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One website defines TERRORISM as: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.</em>"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">TO SEE THIS DEFINITION YOURSELF GO TO: </span><a href="http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/terrorism"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/terrorism</span></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> </span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another defines it as:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent...</em>"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">TO SEE THIS DEFINITION YOURSELF GO TO: </span><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism</span></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here, the term is used in such a way of one's one government using <em>terror</em> against it's own citizens to scare them into submission to it's oppressive policies. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, even though the true <em>terrorist</em> is the political regime, the people who won't go along with their oppression are labelled <em>terrorists</em> in order to capture them and silence their opposition. Such an oppressive regime is not only sad, but very immoral and ungodly. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, we see the other extreme in our day with Muslim extremism, in which radical Muslims blow up themselves and others in their attempt to <em>terrorize non-believers.</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>Terror </em>whether it is by individuals, governments, or religions, is always a sad thing. And who pays the most? Those who are hurt or who are forced to give up their liberties. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is why it's important to define the terms "Terrorist" and "Terrorism." For it's important to know that just because someone says that someone is a <em>Terrorist</em> doesn't neccesarily mean they are. It's quite possible they have been <em>labelled</em> by the real Terrorist group. And, it's possible that they just might be a true <em>freedom fighter</em>. This is why it's important to practice <em>discernment</em> and look at the person, group, religion, or government, that has been labeled <em>terrorist</em>. What are they preaching, teaching, pushing. What are their ideals, dogmas, policies? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If they are trying to take away one's liberties and oppress them them, they are most likely <em>Tyrants </em>and therefore<em> Terrorists.</em> If they are fighting for liberty, then they are most likely <em>Patriots. </em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The definition of terms are so important.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-58057480054265088582012-12-12T08:53:00.002-08:002013-03-01T08:56:13.227-08:00Forced Union<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you look at the world today, you'll find that it's not much different than any other point in human history. Sin abounds, corruption is rampant, and the rich desire to get richer while the poor suffer in their poverty. It's always been like this. So it's no surprise that it continually follows this pattern.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, it's only been in the last several hundred years that the world has seen a surprising interruption to this pattern with the founding of the United States of America. The founding fathers set up a country with a system of government in which people could be truly FREE, and able to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted with no interruption or bondage. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
They were free <em>physically,</em> in that each individual was his own sovereign. He was the king of his own land, as it was his to do with as he pleased. (This was called the <em>pursuit of happiness</em>). He was free <em>economically</em>, and if he worked hard, he could keep the fruit of his labours and enjoy them. He was free <em>religiously</em>, to follow his own conscience to decide for himself to which church or denomination he chose to attend, or if he so desired to not attend any of them. He was also free <em>spiritually </em>to make decisions for himself and his own soul as to what he desired to do. He could worship in his own way as there was no state church that forced their teachings and spirituality on him. Yes, when the United States of America was founded, it was the greatest nation the earth had ever known!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what happened? It's definitly not that today. In fact, we find that the government of today is not active in securing men's freedoms, rather it's continually toiling in "forcing" people to comply with its own will, oftentimes with many laws that are against the constitution of the United States. Why is this?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The answer is because of "FORCED UNION." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you know anything about the history of this nation, you know that after the founding of the country, there was a movment to keep the <em>union</em> of the country. President Andrew Jackson was a very big supporter of the <em>union </em>of the states. He wanted <em>Union</em> at all costs. But to stay <em>united </em>meant that someone would have to compromise, something that many did not want to do.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And if you know your American History, you know that eventually the divide was so great, that the South seceeded from the <em>Union</em>, as they did not desire the North to dictate them them what they could and couldn't do. Nor did they believe it was right for the North to tax them upwards of 40% (Look up the Morrill Tarrif for more on this). So the South did what the Constitution gave allowance to do. They <em>seceeded</em> from the <em>Union</em>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What happened? You know the story. The North started <em>the War of Northern Agression</em>, also known as <em>the Civil War.</em> (Or the "Un-Civil War," depending upon how you look at it).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The North then practiced <em>FORCED UNION, </em>as they went to war and killed people in order to <em>force</em> them to be <em>reunited</em> with them. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lincoln, that old despot, chose to send a fleet of warships to ATTACK the South. Knowing this, the South gave <em>Union</em> troops thirty days to leave Fort Sumter, and when they did not, they were forced to fire upon them in order to regain their own fort on their own sovereign soil of South Carolina. This they did with only one recorded death (an accident, as a man inside the fort was too close to a keg of powder when it exploded). This the South did in "Self-Defense" of an impending Northern Agressive force coming to FORCE them to remain in the Union. (Why didn't the North just leave them alone?)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now you can argue all you want about <em>slavery</em> and the South and how that led to the Civil War, but the truth is the NORTH wanted to <em>enslave</em> the Southern people because the South had the money, and the North wanted it. That's why they wanted them to remain loyal to the Union, cause they wanted their tax dollars. (Kinda sounds like our current political system today doesn't it? With their FORCED healthcare upon the populace, the government <em>mandates that you must</em> get it, and if you don't want it, you are charged a TAX and a FEE for not complying with their healthcare law, a law that those who passed it <em>DIDN'T EVEN READ IT!!!</em> And a law which over 60% of the American public didn't even want!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So it's clear to see that the history of the United States of America is divided into two distinct and very opposite periods. The first was about 70 years of true freedom, when people could <em>chose</em> for themselves. They originally chose to be a part of the Union. But when they chose to leave, they were attacked, and <em>forced</em> into submission. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second period is what happened after that until this very day, in which the U.S. goverment has a history of <em>forcing</em> compliance to it's will. Just look at the Indians, for a prime example. They were free, and freely traveled the land, but the U.S. government <em>forced</em> them into the Indian territory of Oklahoma, and the "trail of tears" is remembered unto this very day as a great atrocity perpetrated on the native American people by the American government.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, we find that the <em>United</em> States of America at it's founding had a necesssary <em>union</em> which <em>voluntarily </em>came together for the purpose of granting men <em>FREEDOM</em>. But when corruption entered into the picture, that <em>Union </em>become nothing more than an oppressive regime that <em>forced</em> men into compliance with that corruption and <em>enslaved</em> them to a political system that took away men's liberties.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, to depart from the history of the U.S. government, let's look at the modern day Labour Unions, for in them we find a parallel to our own government. I was just watching the news today, and heard about the State of Michigan signing a "Right to Work" law in which it gave people the right to <em>CHOOSE</em> if they want to join a <em>union</em> or not. Many are elated about this, for it's Pro-Choice! But the Unions are in an uproar, and are ranting and raving, and even cussing. They want <em>FORCED UNION, </em>and they are actively hostile towards those who don't! (Watch out violence just might ensue. It's not those who want <em>choice </em>that are the violent ones. It's those who want to <em>force</em> you do so something that are violent! History plainly teaches us this!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why is it that Labor Unions want to <em>force</em> workers to join them? If they are truly Americans, who believe in the Constitution, wouldn't they want people to <em>freely</em> chose for themselves? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The facts are that <em>Labour unions</em> in America have become so strong that they can and do FORCE people to join <em>their</em> UNION whether they want to or not. And, not only that, they take a large chunk of money from their <em>union employees</em> (a tax, if you will) that belong to their <em>union. </em>(See the parallel to the U.S. and what led up to the Civil War? It's all about taking away one's right to choose freely and to keep what one has worked for!) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But shouldn't a person have the <em>right</em> to choose for him or herself if they want to belong to a certain organization? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When Labour Unions started, they claimed they were there to help the people they represented, and they quite possibly did a lot of good. Often they were able to get consessions that made the workplace safer, helped the worker's health, and even got the worker better pay. But as time went on, the Union bosses became greedy. And corruption entered in. And what you see today in <em>Labor Unions</em>, is usually a political organization full of leaders who wish only to take more money from the workers so they can enlarge their coffers and become more even more powerful. In other words, they don't care about the ones they represent, they only care about their organization and the money it produces. (Do you see the parallel yet with our current political system in America in Washington, D.C.? If not, you must be as blind as a bat!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Labor Unions are guilty of trying to<em> force</em> people to submit to them and their ideals. Through extortion, the are the real owners of the business, and they can put the screws on the business owner and even shut them down if they desire. (Just look at the Hostess Cake Factory which was in the news for several weeks as a example. Because the money-hungry <em>Unions</em> tried to force Hostess to comply and were unwavering and unwilling to reach an agreement, Hostess shut it doors and the business went belly up. All because the Unions wanted to "<em>FORCE</em>" compliance to their wishes.) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've personally known men that work hard and belonged to <em>Unions</em> at their job. They all told me the same thing, usually it was something like this: "<em>I DON'T LIKE THE UNION, but unless I pay them and belong to them, I won't have a job, and since this job pays pretty well, I just put up with it, and go along with whatever they say!</em>"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, they have allowed themselves to be a part of something they don't agree with, and they've done so because the Union gives them enough money to make them compliant. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the political world, that would pretty much correspond to what we call "entitlements." The Federal Government passes laws to make <em>their union </em>stronger, while giving away money in different ways and with various programs to make people happy enough to not say anything about their usurpation of authority. (It also buys their vote!) In other words, the <em>union </em>gets bigger, more powerful, and richer, while the workers and citizens get handouts. Yet, they don't realize that they have been enslaved by the <em>Union(s) </em>themselves. And unless they comply, they will have nothing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is nothing short of <em>FORCED UNION</em>. Or, doing what they powerful say, or else!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's not just in the political world, and the work force. It's also in religious circles as well. Many a denomination has a set up in which those who belong to it must comply with their rules under threat of ex-communication. Congregations are told unless they submit to the church and their rules, they are in danger of going to hell and losing their immortal soul. Thus, they comply for fear of eternal punishment. One huge denomination in particular claims that theirs in the only "<em>true church</em>" and outside of <em>their</em> church there is no salvation. Is this not "<em>FORCED UNION</em><em>?</em>" It forces a person to join them and stay with them out of FEAR, rather than out of a FREE conscience.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what's the answer? The only answer is a spritual one. And that's the Lord Jesus Christ. For only in Jesus can a person be made free. For if the Lord shall make you free, you shall be free indeed! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jesus <u>never</u> forced anyone to do anything. He gave all men <em>freewill. </em>This means man has a <em>choice</em> to do as he will. If he choses evil, evil shall befall him, if he choses good, then good should come to him. In God's book, the Bible, man is free to decide his own fate. He's not <em>forced</em> to do anything. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Be careful of those who want to <em>force</em> you to do something without allowing you the opportunity to decide for yourself. True freedom <em>FORCES</em> no one! Union is only truly achieved by <em>FREELY chosing</em> to <em>UNITE</em>, not being forced to do so. </div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-7513534064790562372012-11-07T09:18:00.001-08:002013-03-01T08:56:39.459-08:00What this election taught us.<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Map of national election results" height="178" src="http://l.yimg.com/dh/ap/default/121107/map.jpg" width="320" /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The results are in from the 2012 election, well, except for Florida. The winner is Barak Hussein Obama, II, alias, Barry Obama, alias, Barry Soetero. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What did this election teach us? Several things, but probably the most important one is that the United States of America is a DIVIDED nation, and as the Bible says, "<strong>Every nation...divided against itself shall not stand.</strong>" (Matthew 12:24) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unity is no longer found in this once great nation. It is divided upon racial, gender, political, social and religious lines. And this is exactly what our enemies want: A <em>divided</em> nation. For if you can get two sides fighting against themselves, then you can easily take over, by just waiting until each side tires itself out.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what's interesting is looking at the map above, to see just who voted for whom. We find that there are two colors: red and blue. For those who don't know, <em>Red</em> are the Republicans and <em>Blue</em> are the Democrats. Red is the color of <em>blood</em>, and blue is the color of <em>heaven</em>. This is interesting, as the history of the two parties portrays their political colors. The Republicans are usually the party of War, as Republicans throughout the centuries have waged many wars. And what happens in war? People die, thus <em>blood</em> red. The Democrats, are blue, and what is it they are known for? They want to remake the earth into their own little Utopia; their own little private <em>heaven</em>. So they work on trying to help certain parts of society while trying to rob others to pay for their social endeavors, all of which seldom ever work, and suceed only in dividing even more, rather than uniting. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Each side has their own agenda, and historically, Republicans have opted for war, while Democrats have opted for forcing people to go along with their programs to change society. This cannot be denied.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But if we look at the map again, not in a political way, rather with a religious view, we find something interesting. The red states are those which have traditionally been Christian states, while the blue ones are those which historically have been very anti-Christian, or liberal. They are states which have consistently been against God and the Gospel. In other words, we find for the most part that the nation is still divided into the Northern States vs. the Southern States. The old South, which was known as a moral, Christian society, as a whole voted against Obama, while the old Northern Union states, with the exception of Indiana, went for Obama. How interesting.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What's more, we find the western costal states, which are full of liberals, God deniers, athiests, the sex-crazed pornography industry and more, voted for Obama, while the homeland states, full of farmers, and rural people, voted against him. Are you starting to see a pattern here? You should!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The facts are, the more population there is, the more they kick out God and the Bible. And, the more quickly they sink into apostasy, immorality, and degregation. What's further is that the more populated states hold the bigger secular universities, which often preach against God, the Bible, morality, and conservatism. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what we found in this election is that even though there still are some Christians in our nation, they have little power, and little voice. Even though they have the most territory per square foot, they still have the least amount of pull. Why is this?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The facts are that the more people you get in an area, the more sin you'll have. That's why cities are cess pools of wickedness, while rural areas are usually more moral. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It all goes back to the Bible, in which God set up an agricultural society, desiring men to own their own land and live off of it. In fact, God even warned about people getting together and living too close. In Isaiah 5:8, in which we read, "<strong><span style="font-size: small;">Woe unto them that join house to house, </span><i><span style="color: grey; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: grey; font-size: x-small;">that</span></span></i><span style="color: grey; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: grey; font-size: x-small;"></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> lay field to field, till </span><i><span style="color: grey; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: grey; font-size: x-small;">there be</span></span></i><span style="color: grey; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: grey; font-size: x-small;"></span></span></strong><span style="font-size: small;"><strong> no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!</strong>"</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Why did God say this? Because he knew that the more people came together, the easier they would be to deceive and manipulate with mob rule. His desire was for man to have a <em>place</em> where he could go to be alone and comune with God!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly, our country is becoming more populated, and more sinful. And what's worse is the choice of President in our land is not given to whom those who set up the Constitution of the United States of America desired it to go to. For our Founding Fathers set up the system in which the only people who could vote were <em>LAND owners</em>. This meant that those who actually owned part of the country could decide what's best for them. But this was done away with by modern politicians, and now anyone can vote, and they do. And what do they vote for? They vote for themselves, and for those who promise to give them things if they vote for them. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You see, in an agrarian society, people are taught to be <em>self-sufficent </em>and <em>provide for themselves</em>. This is true freedom, and this is what they wanted protected by their government. But in a society that lives in cities, they often find that there is much dilenquency, and many people who can't provide for themselves. They then turn towards <em>hand outs</em>. And they no longer want to make it on their own, rather they become accustomed to others giving them things. This makes them lazy, but subservient, and eventually this type of people care about nothing about<em> giving </em>rather only what they can <em>get </em>from others. (No wonder the South and the North were so different in the times of the Civil War! No wonder the South is known for <em>Southern Hospitality</em>, while the North is known for being <em>rude</em>! It all makes sense!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In order to take power in the United States of America today, it's not hard to figure out how to get a person's vote. All you have to do is <em>promise </em>them something. And a society that doesn't want to be self-sufficent, but rather self-satiating, will gladly vote for you! They want something for nothing! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And, that's how Obama won this election. He promised to <em>give </em>people stuff. The only problem is that in order to <em>give</em> someone something, you have to <em>take</em> it from someone else. And that's what will happen in the next four years. In fact, that's already happened the last four years. The government is in the business of <em>taking</em> from one group to <em>give</em> it to another. In other words, as the President calls it, "Re-distribution of wealth." Or as it's called politically: "Communism" or "Socialism."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So America has come a long way from its foundations. It used to be a moral, Christian society which set up a government based upon Agragarian principles, of all people learning to be self-sufficent, and therefore free. But now, it's the opposite. It's an immoral society which is actively hostile towards God and the Bible, one in which its citizens are taught from an early age to trust the government and obey and if they do so, they will be rewarded. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, one thing is forgotten. HISTORY! For if you study history, you find that governments always abuse their power, and once liberty has been taken from the citizens, it's never given back. In fact, once a populace is enslaved, things go from bad to worse. And all the <em>promises</em> and <em>handouts</em> turn into <em>programs of rationing</em>, in which people get less and less, and eventually starve to death like they did in Russia, Vietnam, Korea, etc. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Communism and Socialism are horrible forms of government. They are nanny states which don't allow you to do anything you want, rather you to do what you are told.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
America wasn't set up this way. But if you believe Newsweek magazine, "We are all Socialists now!" This means America is no longer America!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If this is the case, then why even try? Why go to work, why start a business, why do anything if you can just go on foodstamps and get governmental support? Doesn't that sound like it'd be so easy? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is, so that's why so many do just that. However, they don't see the impending damage and inevitable end of such a practice. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The truth is, it can't last forever. Eventually, all the money will run out and everybody will be left with nothing. They won't even know how to plow fields and live off the land. So they will either turn towards crime (pillaging, plundering, stealing) or they will die. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We have a divided <em>political view</em> in this country. But soon, we will have a divided <em>class system.</em> And eventually there will be no more rich, middle class, and poor. We'll all be poor, as there will be no one to tax to give to the poor. When that happens, all hell breaks loose, and God only knows what will happen next.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Historically, we see one of two things happening: either there is <em>war</em>, or there is <em>holocaust.</em> If war ensues, millions will die. But if it doesn't, governments have historically turned towards the only other means they know of to keep the populace in check. They kill their own people so that they won't revolt against them, or so they don't have to give them food, because it's run out. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you doubt this to be so, just look up what happened with Stalin in Russia, Philpot, Hitler, it's all there! Governments want control. They get it by promising the masses something if they'll give up their liberty. They do, and then the government cannot fulfill it's promises, so it rations and eventually destroys its own people. It's a vicious cycle, but it's been repeating itself since the beginning of time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what did this election teach us? First, that people are ignorant! They don't know that voting for "stuff" leads to the downfall of a nation. Second, that our nation is divided, and it is getting worse. Tensions are rising and people are angry. Third, our rulers don't care about us. If they did, they'd stop spending money and getting the country more in debt. Forth, our nation doesn't care about God, or following his principles. They are <em>carnal</em>, rather than <em>spiritual</em>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, the election taught us that bad times are coming. How far away are they? That's uncertain. But they will come. A system like this cannot last forever. And it's going to have a horrible ending. And if things continue in their present course, we will see an increase of hatred, jealousy, mob riots, protests, civil unrest and more. For these are the inevitable results of a nation who chooses to trust a <em>government</em> rather than <em>God. </em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All we can do is pray and prepare. Pray for our country! </div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-30741910619150126372012-10-17T16:43:00.001-07:002013-03-01T08:56:52.789-08:00Those Who Liberal Leftists Always Desire to Attack<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's amazing to me to see that people just don't think anymore. Maybe it's because they are enslaved to the rat race created from the bad economy in which they have to work so much that they barely have any time left to rest, much less just stop and mull things over. Or perhaps they haven't been taught to think because they went to the secular government run schools in America which do a terrible job of educating them. (Rather they <em>endoctrinate</em> them). Whatever the reason, people today just don't THINK! For if they did, they couldn't help but see the two very different political groups in the United States, and what they believe and what they are trying to do to the American people. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I like to think. Sometimes, I might think a little too much, for I often find myself in a pensative state, reasoning within myself of the things I see around, especially politics. I actually enjoy sitting down and just musing certain things over. And I enjoy the etymology of words. Words have meanings! Yet, it's so strange that people don't even think about what the words they use everyday mean.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, there are those in our country who call themselves "Conservatives." What do they want? They desire to <em>conserve</em> things. That is, they want to hold on to what they have rather than give it to a corrupt government so it can <em>redistribute</em> it to others. <br />
These <em>Conservatives</em> are often referred to as "The Right." And isn't "<em>right</em>" the same as "<em>correct?</em>" When something's <em>right</em> it's <em>true</em> because it's <em>correct</em>. So why is it that so many today (especially in the media) are so against "The Right?" (Hatred towards the right is easily seen and growing by leaps and bounds. Everywhere you look people make fun of <em>Conservatives</em> and those on the <em>right</em>. Why is this?)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So who is the other group who opposses "<em>The Right?</em>" They are often referred to as the "<em>Left.</em>" Who are the left? Well, <em>left</em> is the opposite of <em>right</em>, and if <em>right </em>also means <em>correct</em>, then that must mean the left must be <em>wrong</em>! (I mean, that just makes sense, doesn't it?)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And when we think of the political <em>left</em> throughout the world, we are constantly bombarded with stories of certain "Leftist" groups who are instigating political upheavels and even bloody revolutions in third world countries. Often these "leftists" are nothing more than "Marxists" and "Socialists" who are trying to take over a country and destroy its constitution in favor of a less favorable form of government. <br />
So who are the <em>leftists</em> in America? Usually they are called the "<em>Liberals</em>." And most often they are those in power who are pro-Socialist and pro-Communist. They are the exact opposite of the <em>Conservatives</em>. And being <em>liberal</em> they love to spend money, especially that of others, which they often do by raising taxes. (They love getting more money to spend. They are nothing more than <em>spendthrifts</em> who love to give <em>liberally</em> to their constituents, hence the label "<em>Liberals</em>." This helps them buy the vote, for the more they spend on others, the more those who receive want more, making them very apt to vote for even more handouts).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So as we look at the political speech of today, it's hard to miss, (that even by the definiton of the words themselves), there are two distinct and opposite sides. The <em>good guys</em>, if you will, are the <em>Conservatives</em> who are on the <em>Right</em> (or <em>in </em>the right, however you want to say it), and the <em>bad guys </em>are the <em>liberal Leftists</em> who want to tax everybody and then spend their money as quickly as possible, with the intention of destroying the whole political system so they can set up their own form of government which gives them more power and less accountability.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With this stated, I'm watching the current political system unfold in the United States of America, and I'm seeing that it's not only a battle of of <em>right </em>verses<em> left </em>(or <em>right </em>vs<em> wrong,</em> however you want to say it), rather it's a battle of <em>good</em> vs <em>evil. </em>More clearly explained, it's a battle of those on the <em>Left</em> wanting to gain more power while constantly denegrating those on the right, <em>ridiculing </em>them, and often <em>demonizing</em> them.<em> </em> The Left is vicious and will use anything within their means to slander, discredit, or invalidate the Right. (Is it because deep down they know they are <em>wrong?</em> That's the only thing I can figure. For they often are the ones using <em>evil</em> tactics on others!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How does the Left operate? That's easy. It's so clear that anyone who watches politics can see their S.O.P. (Standard Operating Procedure). Instead of dealing with the <em>truth</em> the Left simply <em>ATTACKS</em> others. And it does so mercilessly. Rather than <em>defend their position</em>, they<em> </em>relish the opportunity only to <em>attack</em> others personally and make them defend themselves and their positions. In other words, they do nothing. They go out of their way to ignore the true issues and make up false accusations that their opponents must then devote their time to defending. (Which keeps them from speaking about the issue and showing the truth about it). And, by so doing, the left get the attention off of <em>who</em> and <em>what</em> they are and on to others and who they proclaim them to bo. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A prime example of this Leftist tactic is our current Leftist President, a man with no political experience, and no record of truly helping others. Before being President, he was a "Community Organizer." What does that even mean? According to the meaning of the word, he tried to <em>organize</em> his <em>community</em>. How did he do it? And what exactly did he organize them for? As we study his life, we find that he sought to get people <em>active</em> in the political process. But who and how and why?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you study the people he is organizing, you find that he was active in building a <em>leftist army</em> using <em>communistic</em> ideals to do so, with the intention of using their influence to intimidate others into submission to his <em>Leftist ideals</em>. With groups like SEIU and the OCCUPY movements, the Left has tried to make us think that America no longer wants Conservative values, rather Socialist venues and Communistic governance. Yet when you study those groups, you find the typical member doesn't even know what he or she believes! (Most of them were just paid a check to stand out on the street corner and chant while they hold a sign.) <br />
It's all smoke and mirrors used by the <em>left</em> to make you think that there really are people out there like them who want what they want. But the facts prove otherwise. Most of America just wants to be left alone and enjoy life with the government off their back! They take the term "pursuit of happiness" to mean that YOU pursue happiness for yourself. (As opposed to the Leftist idea of THEM being the ones to try to make you happy, by doing everything for you).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The left has always believed that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They feel that they are <em>smart</em> and everyone else is too <em>dumb</em> to know what's good for them, and that's why they are needed as the <em>Saviours</em> of humanity to take charge and do what's best for all. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, if you study their teachings, doctrines, and ideals you find they seldom work. Instead they only impoverish the masses and make people dependent on others, rather than self-reliant and self-sufficient. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So rather than deal with their failed policies, the Left must get the attention off of themselves and their failures and on to their adversaries. Thus, they attack swiftly and repeatedly. And before we can find out the truth, they attack again with blankets of accusations, over and over, without rest. It's like they build a smoke cloud so thick, that no one can ever see the picture clearly. Yet, if the smoke would just clear, then they would see the truth for themselves.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly, most people allow themselves to be decieved by the Left, and they enjoy believing the accusations of the Left before they are proven true or false. The simple truth is that it's not the truth that people remember, rather the <em>accusations</em> against a person! A person could be completely innocent of any wrong, but most people will always remember that person as <em>so and so </em>that was accused of <em>such and such</em>. It doesn't matter if they did it or not. They are the person who was <em>accused</em> of doing such. The Left knows this and uses this smear campaign without mercy, for it is their most effective weapon. </div>
Yet, as we study the history of the Left, we find that there are always the same people which the Left hates and is active in Attacking. These are the people they will <em>always</em> attack, because they are a threat to their positions. They are as follows. <br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>The Righteous</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Left hates those who are right. I guess that's why they despise "The Right" and label them "<em>Right-wing </em>Extremists." They want people to believe that what they believe and teach is "extreme" when usually, all they belive is what the Constitution says. How is that extreme?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Left cannot take anyone who is right, nor can they deal with anyone who has their facts straight. They live in a dream world, where they actually believe they, and they alone, are helping people, so anyone else must be destroyed. Yet they don't realize they are hurting others, while plunging the country deeper into debt. They are the ones who are in the wrong, but they can't see it. So they must attack the <em>righteous,</em> for the only alternative would be to admit they are wrong. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>The Redeemed</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This country used to be a "Christian Nation." But not long ago, many news media organizations proudly stated that this is no longer true. Why? Because they are bais against Christianity and look at it as an outdated system of morales. They openly riducle and make fun of God and the Bible. Even our President said something to the effect that Americans who hang onto their "guns and their Bibles" are behind the times.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why is there such a war against Christians from the Left? Could it be that the Conservatives or "the Right" is in favor of God, guns, and the Constitution and the Left hates this as these are all a threat to their overall plan to take over the country? Or could it be they really know they are <em>wrong</em> in what they believe and practice, and rather than <em>repent</em> and <em>get right</em> with God, they would rather rage against those who claim to know and love God?<br />
Or could it be even more sinister then that? Could they be lead of Satan himself? (A strong possibility, as many <em>leftists</em> follow a book by Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his work to LUCIFER!!!)</div>
Could it be the reason the left is against the right is because it is a spiritual battle of good verses evil?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>The Rich</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's strange to me to see the Left going after the Rich. For some of the richest people in the world are Leftist Liberals who have made millions of dollars in both legal and illegal business deals and arrangments. Yet they love to cater to the poor and make them think they really care about them, claiming they live only to try to <em>help </em>them. They further love to produce tension in a sort of class warfare between the Rich and Poor, stating that those evil "1%" devils are the reason that they are Poor. (Which isn't true at all). But the left never seem to tell you that many of these same Liberals are closer to the 1% than they are to being Poor themselves. Could it be the Left only cares about money, and wants to get rich on the back of the poor and middle class?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>The Radio Talk Show Hosts</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thank God there is still freedom of Speech in the United States of America. (At least there still is today as I write this). But do you care to guess who wants to get rid of it? That's right, THE LEFT! For it's <em>they </em>who have tried to pass legislation called "The Fairness Doctrine" in which they desire to regulate talk radio and give their liberal voice equal time with Conservative Talk Show Hosts. Why is this? I believe the answer is very plain to see. People want to hear TRUTH rather than LIES. And many Conservative Talk Show Hosts can back up what they say with facts and evidence. While most liberal Talk Show Hosts are only active giving their <em>opinions,</em> or active only in <em>ATTACKING</em> others. (Which again, is the standard Operating Procedure of the Left).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a huge push today by the modern liberal media and leftist politicans against free speech and against Radio Talk Show Hosts. The reason is that even though they claim to be so "tolerant" the truth is that liberals and leftists are the most <em>intolerant </em>people in the world. <br />
Why are they so <em>intolerant</em> while claiming to be more <em>tolerant </em>than others? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Those with a Real Track Record</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, Liberals and Leftists don't like anyone who has a real track record of truly helping others and making the country better. Call it jealousy or whatever you like but they despise someone else getting the praise because they want it all for themselves. So they tend to conveniently omit the facts and ignore certain people and time periods of our nation. <br />
That is, they ignore the track records of those conservatives that made a difference and made things better. They further ignore the results of their own policies, especially when they make things worse. I guess you could say that Liberals and Leftists are some of the most "ignorant" people around, because they either DON'T KNOW, FORGET, or WILLFULLY OMIT the truths of history.<br />
To liberals, leftists, and Democrats, Reagan was evil. But why? Was it cause he was a Conservative? That must be it, for Reagan did a lot for our country.<br />
As a child, I remember interest rates on savings accounts being up to 18% under Reagan. They've never been there since, nor have they ever been there under a Leftist Liberal and his policies! (Can you imagine getting EIGHTEEN PERCENT intrest on YOUR MONEY! That'd be awesome!!!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When you look at our current President, he has absolutely no leg to stand on. He's done nothing to make this country better. In fact, it could be argued he only made it worse, with his TAX on us through HealthCare, his high gas prices which came from him not giving permits to drill for oil, and his stimulus packages given to companies which eventually went bankrupt, which in turn ended up plunging us into even more debt, which then eventually led to our credit rating being downgraded! He even said something to the effect of "If I don't get things done in this first term, then I'm only going to be a one term President." (Wouldn't that be awesome!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what does the President have to offer the American people? What really? Four more years of "hope?" What are we to hope for? That it doesn't get any worse???</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many people don't like Mitt Romney. I personally don't either. To me, he's a liberal himself. For it was his healthcare plan that was copied for Obamacare. But one thing about Romney is that he has run a business and it was profitable. And when you run a business you know about making profit rather than running yourself and your company into debt. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, Liberals <u>never</u> want to focus on that! They can't because that would be a fact. (The fact being Romney has more experience as a CEO than Obama). So instead Liberals simply <em>attack</em> Romney and try to say that he <em>fired </em>countless thousands of people and left them out in the cold without a job. Whether this is true or not, think about it for a minute: "Who would you want as President? A guy like Obama who's not created <em>any</em> jobs and has done <em>nothing</em> good and got our country deeper in debt, or a guy like Romney who's run a successful business?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For me, (even though I'm not a fan of Romney), I'd rather have Mitt Romney, because I WANT SOME PEOPLE TO BE FIRED in Washington. In fact, I wish Romney would fire every federal employee, and make America profitable again!!!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I wish he would run the government like a company. In fact, I'd like to see the government making so much money, that getting in debt, it would end up making a profit. Further, I'd like to see America run like a profitiable country in which each American citizen gets dividend checks. Wouldn't that be cool?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But alas, all this will never happen. Why? Because the Left couldn't allow it. It would take away their reason for existing, as they live only to <em>help</em> the poor. (Or so they say). And even if this dream would come to pass, the leftists would have to ignore it happened, for it doesn't fit their narrative. They want everyone to think that Conservatives and Republicans are EVIL, and they can never do any good, for they are just a bunch of RICH people who only want to profit off of others. <br />
So the Leftist will continue to attack, while the Right will continue to defend themselves, and the vicious and fruitless circle will continue with nothing good getting done and the whole mess just swirling downward into the toilet. What a shame too! This country has a lot of potential.<br />
But at least now, you know who it is the Left is busy attacking and why! They hate, and I reiterate, HATE, with passion, those who try to live right, do right, and act right. It is a slap in the face to them to believe you are smart enough to live your own life and do your own thing. They can't have that, for in their own little world (in which they live in their tiny little brains), no one can survive without them. So, they want to feel needed. They have to feel like they are completing a purpose. And because their self-righteousness consumes them and overtakes them and drives them forward, they can only ATTACK all others who don't agree with them. Some call it ignorance. Others call it pride. But it is nothing more then the mind of the feeble who can't defend the truth, so they spend their time lashing out at others. <br />
May you always remember who they are and why they do what they do. It's because they can't cope and deal with reality, so they make up their own. <br />
A wise man once said that you can DENY REALITY, but you can't deny the EFFECTS of denying reality. What a an interesting thought! <br />
<br />
Any comments??? Please provide them below!<br />
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-68256713241973620322012-09-07T05:49:00.002-07:002013-03-01T08:57:12.243-08:00The Early Legal System in America<div style="text-align: justify;">
I wish people knew and understood how things used to work in America and how different they are today, for truly we have come a long way--a long way in the WRONG DIRECTION! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In school I was taught that the great thing about America was that you were <em>innocent until proven guilty.</em> (Whoops. Excuse me. I got that wrong. I was taught that you were <em>presumed</em> innocent in the eyes of the law until <em>proven</em> guilty.) That's what made America great! You had a government that gave you the benefit of the doubt, and they treated you civil. And the legal system was set up to be fair to you whether you were guilty or not. But now times have changed. Today you are automatically viewed as <em>guilty</em> (not presumed that way, you are just viewed that way), until proven innocent! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let me show you the difference. In early colonial America and even under the Constitution up until the time of the Civil War, this is how the legal system worked. If a man was wronged by another, the wounded party would go to the court and make an accusation to the judge. The judge would then send the accused party a legal document called a "Writ of Habeus Corpus." ("Habeus Corpus" is a latin term that pretty much means "Have your body...") The sheriff would deliver this paper to the accused, and the paper would instruct that person to <em>have their body</em> in court on an appointed day and time to stand before his accuser. This accused person was <u>not</u> jailed. Why? Because they were presumed innocent. And, they did not come to court to <em>prove they were innocent.</em> They went to court for the accuser to try to <em>prove they were guilty.</em> (For the accuser could have been lying!) This was fair to both parties. The accused had time to prepare his defense, while the accuser had his day in court to met the man face to face of whom he felt wronged him. The judge presided and heard both sides.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, if the accused did not show up in court on the appointed time before the judge and his accuser, then and only then, was a paper called a "Warrant" issued by the judge. This was a warrant for the <em>arrest </em>of said person. And, (watch this now, as it's very important) that person was <u>not</u> arrested for the crime itself that he was accused of, rather he was arrested for the crime of disobeying the judge's demand of not appearing in court! That is, he was only arrested for not making an appearance in court.</div>
<br />
Once the accused was apprehended for not appearing in court, he remained in jail until trial. And, he was viewed as <em>probably</em> guilty for not going to court to defend himself. But even then he was still to be <em>presumed</em> innocent, and it was the prosecutor who was to <em>prove</em> that he was guilty.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is how things worked in early America. What a great justice system! If a man did right, he was given the benefit of the doubt by his government and had the right to know when an accuser chose to sue him. He also knew the date of the trial and had plenty of time to prepare his defense. And, if a man was indeed guilty, he had time to <em>run.</em> He could "leave town" so to speak, and never look back. In fact, if he left the country he could get away from facing up to his crime, (and in those times many people did just this, traveling to Australia, Africa, New Zealand, India, and other places) and even get away with it in some cases. This was fine with the government, as that was one less law breaker in their midst! And one less trial a judge had to preside over. The victim had been defrauded and there was nothing more that could be done, end of story as far as the legal system was concerned. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All this worked well, and everything was great, that is until the Civil War. And then everything changed. Who's to blame? That would be Abraham Lincoln. (He's probably one of the worst President's America ever had, but they still try to make him out to be a "honest" and good guy.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was Abraham Lincoln who did away with the "Writ of Habeus Corpus." And, it has yet to be instated or put back into effect even in our own time. Further, under his administration Lincoln and his cabinet and his army practiced forced arrests of people upon mere "suspicion" of guilt. That is people were rounded up and imprisoned indefinitely without any proof whatsoever of having committed a crime. (They were viewed as <em>guilty</em> until proven <em>innocent). </em>Not only was this a great injustice, but many of them were not even given the right to a trial by jury, nor were they allowed to plead their innocence. They were simply locked up and the key was thrown away upon mere suspicion of them being a Southern Sympathizer. How is this fair, just, or righteous? It's not.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today, the legal system of the United States of America is very different from what it was like in the Pre-Lincoln days. If you are suspected of a crime in our day, the police can go to a judge and get a warrant without a writ of habeus corpus, and they can come into your house against your will (never mind the Constitution has a clause against unreasonable searches and seizures) and arrest you and throw you in jail. They can further take anything they want and keep it. This doesn't sound like justice, does it? This sounds more like the Communist KGB or the Nazi thugs in Germany. Where's presumed innocence until proven guilty?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, the authorities can arrest you and keep you in jail until trail (if they allow you to even have one, for under the Patriot Act they can hold you indefinitely now if they want to). You <em>might</em> be allowed out of jail on bond if you can afford to pay the outrageous amounts usually imposed by the judge, but if not then you must remain in jail until you go to trail. And then during your trial, you are not <em>presumed innocent</em> until proven <em>guilty</em>, rather you are already <em>presumed guilty </em>until you can <em>prove your innocence. </em>What a fearful and oppressive system! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Doesn't the early legal system in America sounds much better? When we compare how it was then and how it is now, the difference is like night and day. One system allows you freedom to either defend yourself from false accusations or to admit your guilt and pay restitution. (I forgot to mention that part. If a man was guilty he didn't have to do prison time. He only did it if he couldn't pay grievances to the accuser. If he could pay, the judge made him do so, and he was then set free). But look at our system today. It demands jail time, and doesn't just dish it out as a penalty once a person has been found guilty by a jury, but it often makes a person rot in jail as they wait for their trial. Where's the freedom?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What's changed over the years? The attitude of the government towards its citizens is what changed. Before, Americans were viewed as sovereigns with certain rights, given them by GOD himself. (What the Declaration of Independence clearly states.) Now, God has been kicked out and the government has become secular, viewing its citizens as nothing more than property which they presume are always guilty until they can prove they are not. (Which incidentally is how a <em>Communist Government</em> views their own citizens). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because of the lack of belief in God, there is a widespread lack of morals, and this has led to much more crime. Because of this the American court systems are over filled, and it's easy for judges, lawyers, and juries to become cold and callous, thinking everyone is guilty. They have become used to dealing with people who truly are guilty, and thus, they feel that anyone who is accused is most likely guilty so they should be locked up. But what about those who are innocent? Should we not treat everyone the same whether they are guilty or not? And how can we know until after they have been <em>found</em> <em>guilty </em>by a jury of their peers? Why do we automatically <em>assume</em> they are guilty and treat them as such?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I believe what America needs is to get back to the old system. What a great system it was. You give the accused a chance to appear in court after serving them with a <em>Writ of habeus corpus</em>. That gives them a heads up that they are accused. If they are guilty and run, then we know they are most likely guilty. And, we treat them as malcontents fleeing from the law. The judge serves a <em>warrant</em> for their arrest and they go to jail, not for the crime itself, but for disobeying the judge. Next, you give them a <em>speedy trial</em>. (This waiting in jail for years before trial is ridiculous! What a waste of taxpayers money!) Next, you still treat them as <em>innocent</em> until they are proven <em>guilty</em> without any shadow of a doubt. And then we allow them the option of either <em>paying financially for the crime themselves</em> or choose to reject payment and do jail time as payment for their crime. This would help clear out the prisons, for if a man can pay money as restitution, that would help pay for a lot of the expenses of the legal system. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This would work great for every crime in America, except murder, rape, and kidnapping. For these crimes a person should not be able to <em>buy their way out</em>. Nor should a person go to jail for life for these crimes. Rather, there should be <em>capital punishment</em> if a person is found guilty of these heinous crimes. But this is not my own personal opinion. This is what the Bible teaches, and is something that for many years was even practiced in the American justice system. Even up until the beginning of the 1900s there were still public hangings of those found guilty of these crimes. Why? Because when you intend to steal the life of another human being or defile them through rape, you have forfeited your own life. And for this reason, you should not be allowed to live! Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today it's quite different. We let murderers, rapists, and kidnappers go to jail for several decades, and then we let them out. And quite often, the first thing they do when they get out is go and do those very same things all over again, raping, killing, kidnapping. And then it's back to jail with them, and the process starts all over again. Why is this? It's almost like the modern Legal System rather than <em>punishing</em> true transgressors is guilty of <em>empowering</em> them to commit those heinous crimes again. Why have they stopped practicing <em>capital punishment?</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em></em> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In summary, America used to be great. It was so because each individual was viewed as a sovereign citizen with many rights given them by God. And, if one of them was accused by his fellow citizen, then a just and righteous system was in place to protect the accused in case the accuser was deceitfully trying to falsely accuse a righteous man. But if the accused was guilty, the system was set up to make sure he was not taken and hung by out of control mobs just upon a mere accusation of guilt. Rather he was given a fair and speedy trial and witnesses were given ample time to tell what they saw. And if a man was truly guilty, he had a chance to make things right, by making restitution to those he wronged. But in case of murder, kidnapping, or rape, when there was <em>no way whatsoever</em> to make things right, it was the duty of the state to execute judgment, and they did, which usually was in the form of hanging or sometimes in front of a firing squad.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But today America's legal system is in decline. It's full of guilty people who fall through the cracks and quickly are set free only to go and do the same crimes all over again, while sometimes (and probably more often than we think) innocent people are wrongly jailed and left to sit in prison for crimes they didn't commit. It's sad that no one cares or seems to want to do anything about it. I submit that maybe the answer is to go back to the old way of doing things. What's wrong with serving a <em>Writ of Habeus Corpus </em>first<em>? </em>Then, and only then, if a man doesn't appear in court, have a judge issue an <em>arrest warrant</em>. And then hold the trial. It worked back then, and it will work today. If only they would try it!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-1835426699844802422012-01-04T09:00:00.000-08:002012-01-05T11:27:49.683-08:00THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY IN THE CIVIL WAR<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If you have studied anything about the Civil War, chances are that you have been indoctrinated to believe that the Civil War was only about one thing and one thing only: SLAVERY.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But this is not entirely true. In fact, it's not true at all. That is of course unless you define the term sightly diferently than most people do and and who the term is is applied to. For there is more than one kind of slavery.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many today believe the South was the bad guy in the Civil War, and they were "evil" for owning slaves. But is that true? Was that really all there was to it? Or was there more? If you will study history, you will see there was a whole lot more to it than just the slavery issue. In fact, the Civil War, like almost every war ever fought in the history of man, had a lot to do with money, land, and power.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Before going any further on the topic of slavery, let me briefly state what I believe personally about Slavery. I don't like it. The way I look at it, I would not want to be a slave to anyone, and for that reason, I wouldn't want to own a slave myself. In other words, because I wouldn't want to be "enslaved," I would not want to partake in enslaving others to myself. It's that simple to me. It's so clear cut and to the point.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">With this stated, let us get back to our topic at hand: Slavery and the Civil War. And we must first ask ourselves why Southerners had slaves. The reason they had slaves was three fold:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. BECAUSE THEY WERE SOLD TO THEM BY ENGLAND AND THE NORTHERN STATES.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. BECAUSE IT WAS LEGAL.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE BIBLE.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">If you know your history, you know that it was the British who first brought slaves to America (or the Portuguese, depending upon which version of history you choose to believe). And if you have done your homework, you also know that it was the <em>Northern states</em> and their <em>Northern Ships </em>which sold slaves to the South. So Southerners owned slaves because they were taught by the British and the Northerners that it was okay to have them. In fact, they encouraged it. They wanted $, and their practice of capturing and selling negroes brought them a pretty penny. It was all about money, and the North got rich off of their business of selling slaves. It was the NORTH who started the slave trade! Southerners just bought them. Why? Because they assumed the Northerners thought it was okay!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The second reason that Southerners had slaves was because it was legal. The laws at the time allowed it. And as you probably know, when the Constitution of the United States of America was set up, slavery was written into the document and allowed. This is important to know, as Southerners were labeled "rebels" by the Northern hordes, and "immoral" for owning slaves. But they were simply following the laws of the land, laws which were set up in the <em>Northern colonies,</em> in New England.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The third reason that the South owned slaves was because they read that it was allowed in the Bible. As you probably know, the South was as a whole a very religious and God-fearing people. They believed the word of God (the King James Bible). So when they read in the book of Genesis that Canaan was to be "cursed" and to be a "servant of servants" they believed it was to be so. (For those who don't know, Canaan, was the son of Ham, a black man).</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Almost all Southerners read the scriptures, and because of this they believe slavery was not wrong. For it was clearly something that God allowed in the Bible. Many Southerners took 1 Timothy 6:1-5 as a very clear passage that the owning of slaves was indeed a Biblical ideal. There we read: </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">6:1<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and <i>his </i>doctrine be not blasphemed.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">2<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And they that have believing masters, let them not despise <i>them, </i>because they are brethren; but rather do <i>them </i>service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">3<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, <i>even </i>the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">4<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">5<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And many Southerners even took verse 3-5 as applying to the North, when they tried to outlaw slavery, even taking the last four words "from such withdraw thyself" as a scriptural passage in favor of sucession from the union.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Southerners, therefore, viewed slavery as something not only that was <em>legal</em> but also something that was <em>Biblical</em>. And they practiced it not only because it was allowed in the Constitution of the United States, but because it was clearly found in the Bible.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now whether or not they were right is subject to debate. Many people today hate slavery, and for this reason they want to demonize the South and uplift the North, and their noble cause to free the slaves. But to do so is quite hypocritical. For history clearly teaches us that the North was those who sold the slaves to the South to begin with, and it was the Northern New England States as well as the Southern ones who wrote the Constitution, allowing slavery. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus, wouldn't it stand to reason, that to be against slavery and the South demands that a person be against the Constitution, the North, and the Bible? (I'll let you answer that one for yourself).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But here, we will not delve into the moral issue of slavery, and whether it is right or wrong to own slaves. We will leave that to others. What we need to examine now is whether or not the cause of the Civil War was about "slavery" or not. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">My own personal belief is as follows: The Civil War was <u>not</u> about slavery, although the Civil War was indeed about slavery. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Kinda sounds like a conflicting statement, doesn't it? But please let me explain. The truth is that in the eye of the beholder, something can look completely different to one person than to another, especially when people don't see eye to eye. Thus, the issue of Slavery and the Civil War all depends upon the eye of the beholder. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">To the North, many abolitionists believed they were fighting an immoral foe who owned slaves, something they deplored. So they thought they were fighting a just war, because they were helping to free a certain race of people. (Note: Not all Union soldiers thought this way. In fact, very few did. The truth is most of the Northern soldiers were drafted and had to fight. And they didn't really care about black people. Other Northerners actually owned slaves themselves! In fact, General Grant owned slaves even after the Emancipation Proclamation and even had them in the White House when he was president!)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">To the South, the war was not about slavery at all, rather about "States Rights" or their God-given and Constitutional right to govern themselves. They did not look at the North as people who were trying to steal their slaves, rather as invaders on their own soverign soil, who were trying to take them over and <em>enslave them</em> to a tyrannical government, who would not even abide by its own laws. (It's common to hear many stories of black slaves who fought along side their masters. They too looked at the North as invading their land and trying to take away their soverign right to govern themselves).</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So if you look at it from a Southern perspective, the Civil War was not about the <em>slavery </em>of black people, but free Southern Citizens who were fighting for their liberty, desiring not to be <em>enslaved</em> by a tyrannical government in Washington who wished to take away their rights.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Who was right is often a subject of debate, with people forming all sorts of opinions. Some think the North was right, and are glad the North won. But such people conviently overlook the horrible atrocities of the Northern occupation, and the many rapes (often on young black girls) and plunder and burning down of whole towns by Sherman's troops. Nor do they desire to talk about the corrupt rule of the Carpet baggers, or the mass starvation of the South after the war. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">On the other hand, those who think the South was right don't take into consideration the Northern belief of "union" above all, and the desire to have a strong Centeralized big government in Washington under the rule of Lincoln.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">One could argue either side. But let's not argue at all. Let's look not at the cause of the war, nor the actual war itself. Instead, let's focus on the fruit of the war. What did it produce?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The answer is not that simple. For after the war, the United United States became a very big, powerful, and rich superpower. It grew by leaps and bounds and eventually became the greatest country on earth! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But what is it now. It is better off than before? The facts are that America today is almost exactly what it was in Lincoln's day. It is a country divided. Part of the country wants its freedoms back and wants to separate from a tyrannical government that wants to tax it to death. The other part of the country likes the idea of communism and socialism, which is nothing sort of trading one's liberty for security, of which Benjamin Franklin aptly put it that if you do, you'll have neither liberty nor security.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In our day, our nation is in debt up to it's eyeballs. There is more racial tension and terrorism today then ever before in the history of the nation. <br />
<br />
It's hard to find a job. It's harder to make ends meet. It's even harder to suceed. It's almost like we are living just like those Southerners did in the South during the time of Reconstruction. No one has any money, and for this reason the economy is so bad.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's almost like the government is once again trying to make slaves out of us all by taking away our rights, our property, our freedom. No, that couldn't be, could it???<br />
<br />
However you look at it, the issue of Slavery is indeed interwined with the Civil War. But was it really a war to FREE slaves, or was it rather a war to ENSLAVE the populace. This is something that you must decide for yourself. Remember, history is always written by the conquering force. And historically, they always seem to embellish the facts, and try to make themselves look better than they actually were. </div>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-91418428365353423192011-12-12T10:54:00.000-08:002012-01-05T11:25:21.912-08:00The Guilt of your Accusers!<div style="text-align: justify;">When I was in Bible School a friend and fellow student told me something that I <u>NEVER</u> forgot until this very day. It was so <em>simple</em>, yet so <em>profound</em>. He said, "<em>The thing that people accuse you of is most often the very thing they are guilty of themselves!</em>"</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Over the years I've found this to be true over 99% of the time. Whenever someone calls you names, or accuses you of something, or attacks you personally with slander, and you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are 100% innocent and they are<em> LYING</em>, then it's because <em>they</em> are guilty of that very same thing themselves!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Take Jesus for an example. The Pharisees condemned him for <em>blasphemy</em>. But was he guilty? No, they were guilty of <em>blaspheming</em> God and their own Messiah!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Take Hitler. He blamed the Jews for "money grubbing" and taking advantage of Germans. What did he do? The same exact thing! (You should have seen Herman Goering's house. It was full of the looted treasures of Europe!)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Take Stalin. He said the Czars were to blame and that they were <em>unfair</em> towards the Russian people, empoverishing them and keeping them as subjects. So what did he do? He made Communism the national form of government, which <em>EMPOVERISHED</em> the people, and kept them as <em>SUBJECTS</em> who were abused by their own government. (I won't even mention how many millions of his own people that Stalin murdered in cold blood).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Take any dictator you want. It's all the same. They claim those they are against are guilty of something, but if you give them power then they end up being guilty of the very exact thing they ACCUSED their predecessor of doing! (Whether he really did do it or not). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Modern liberals in America are a prime example. They claim that their opponents are "racists." However, when you look at their opponents you find they go out of their way to not be so. However, the liberals cry aloud against white people, Jews, and others. How can this be. Oh, yeah, it's cause they are GUILTY of the very thing they ACCUSE others of! (Lately, a cable newscaster said that the 2012 Iowa Caucuses don't matter because, and I quote, "<em>They are too WHITE, too EVANGELICAL and too RURAL!</em>" Can you imagine? Logically, she must against those things and in only helping BLACKS, ATHEISTS, and CITY DWELLERS. But... isn't that racist? Why not treat all men equally? Are blacks better than whites or vice versa? Are atheists better than Christians? Are City folk better than Country folk? What a RACIST RANT from this liberal newscaster!)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In my own personal life, I've been attacked time and again, and it never ceases to amaze me how often I remember my old friend's statement, and how often it turns out to be true. I've been accused time and again of things I'm not and/or things I have never done, but when I study the lives of those who accuse me, they are guilty of those very same things. And, I'm sure you've seen this yourself in your own life. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">How about it? Got any examples of people, politicians, dictators, etc., accusing others but then be guilty of that very same thing themselves? You can leave them in the comments box. I'd love to hear them!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-22966857756825359722011-11-30T08:46:00.000-08:002013-03-01T08:58:08.254-08:00The Devaluing of America<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yesterday my wife and I ran errands. We always try to pass out tracts and witness when we go to town, and we had a great opportunity to witness to a Salvation Army volunteer. But that's a different story.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While traveling, we saw a sign on the side of the road that said, "<em>Moving Sale.</em>" Loving Garage Sales, we decided to stop, so we followed the signs to a beautiful home right on the water. As we went inside we met the owner who told us about why he was selling everything. His story was heart-breaking. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He told us that three or four years ago his home was valued at 1.2 million dollars. The plummeting economy slowly chipped away at the value of the house and now the house is estimated to be worth only about $700,000. The problem is the man said he owed more than that on his mortage. And the reason he was selling everything was in the hopes of being able to make a few more payments on his mortage and hope someone will buy it before the bank forecloses on him. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His story was so sad. He said for five years he had the house on the market. Not only had he bought the home years ago as an investment, and built many add-ons to the home to raise it's value, but he seriously thought he would eventually make money on the house and be able to sell it someday for a profit. Especially since it was right on the water, with a long pier out on the water.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As I looked at his situation, I was saddened greatly. I also looked around the neighborhood and all the homes in the area were also in foreclosure and up for sale. What was worse was the majority of the homes were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Remember them? Yep, they are the GOVERNMENTAL agencies that years ago the government started to "Help People." Uh, huh. Right. (to be read sarcastically).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let me see if I can get this straight and explain this for you folks that don't know what happened. Yep, the government passed laws to "help" people which forced banks to give loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back. What happened? People didn't pay them back. They couldn't as the economy failed, and the banks didn't get their money back. So we had to "bail" those banks out, as they were "too big to fail." <br />
But what about this guy? Who bails him out? Nobody. He lost everything, and he gets nothing in return. What a sad state. But that's how America has been devalued. Things are worse less, while the prices people owe for them remain the same. Who gets rich? Bankers. </div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-50585709906451326712011-11-21T11:11:00.000-08:002012-09-07T06:21:53.965-07:00The Great Divide<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Bible says, "...<strong>Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.</strong>" (Matthew 12:25)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And as we look at the United States of America, we find that it is a nation<em> divided.</em> Half of the country is pro-American, pro-Constititution, pro-Gun rights, pro-freedom, while the other half is pro-communism, pro-socialism, pro-progressivism, pro-anarchy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So which side will win? That's not the issue. The issue is that there is DIVISION rather than UNITY. And the Bible clearly teaches us that it is the <em>division</em> that will bring <em>desolation</em> and the <em>fall</em> of this great nation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On one side we have those who think they president is not doing enough. But on the other side, there are those who think he's done <em>too much</em> already. So who is right? It all depends on what it is you want him to do. If you are a socialist, a communist, and an anarchist, you want him to do as much as possible to bring in chaos and to destroy the system in order to set up your own ideals. However, if you are a constitutionalist and freedom lover, you feel he has overstepped his boundaries laid forth in the constitution, and is guilty of pushing upon the American citizens things that are not only wrong, but anti-american!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So which side is right? That's a subject for debate. But we won't focus on that here. What we will look at is the "GREAT DIVIDE" between them. It's almost as if those on both sides are on opposite extreme. They are so far on one side or the other that they <em>cannot </em>and <em>will not</em> compromise and meet in the middle. And, this is exactly what we are seeing in the news today. Politicians have drawn the line in the sand and told others that they must get on this side or that side. But this line-drawing is what throughout history has always led to strives, envy, hatred, and even wars! It's dividing people so that they will fight one another. And the division seeks to keep them apart rather than uniting them on the things they can agree on.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is exactly what the devil wants, and what he specializes in. He wants people to hate one another and be so far to the opposite side of the spectrum of each other that they can <em>never</em> get along. This assures him that they will be long time enemies, and he will seek to work his best at bringing out the worst in both parties, making them lash out against each other. Eventually, their anger will turn to hatred, and then to violence, and then countless hundreds of thousands of people will get hurt. This delights the devil, who takes solace in the pain of others.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what is it exactly that Americans are divided on? That's a good question, for as you look at what it is that divides them, you find an interesting thing. It appears that one side is<em> good</em> and one side is <em>evil.</em> It further seems that one side is influenced by God and the Bible, while the other side is heavily saturated with Luciferian doctrines, and satanism. So who are these two sides, and what exactly divides them? Let's look at a few of the key dividing doctrines.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you know American politics, you know of the two-party system that dominates it. There are <em>Republicans,</em> and <em>Democrats,</em> and most Americans are either one or the other. Of course there are those who call themselves "Independents" but most of them would admit that their beliefs and political ideals line up with one of these two parties.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So who are the parties and what do they believe? Well, it used to be easy to define them, but today it's not that easy, for there are those who have infiltrated both parties which don't always adhere to the main party line. This is why it's so common to hear of politicians "switching parties" nowadays. They jump ship and go from one side to another. Why? Because they see their parties are "changing" and they aren't what they used to be. Either that, or the politicians themselves have changed, and that's why they choose to leave their party for another.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But the division in American is much more than just Democrat vs. Republican. In fact, it's hard to find any differences between the Dems and the Reps, for both of them are now doing the same things. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what is the real factor that divides us politically? Some say it's really Liberals vs. Conservatives. And this makes more sense.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's look briefly at the difference between these two groups, for it's there that we find the dividing lines.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, Liberals take a weak stance on the constitution while Conservatives take a strong stance on it, believing we should take it literally. Why is this? It's because the Constitution is a document that relied heavily upon GOD and man's GOD-GIVEN rights. Liberals, however, don't seem to like God too much, as the majority of them have been educated in secular schools to despise God. Thus, they believe that it is GOVERNMENT that gives man rights, not God. Thus, liberals are "anti-God" while they are pro "playing God" in their politics.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Second, Liberals believe in governmental welfare, or forced political giving to those who don't have. Conservatives also believe in giving, but they stress that it should be done only by indivuals or churches, and not by citizens through forced taxation. This is an important point, as the Bible teaches that a man should "work by the sweat of his brow" for what he has. He's to work hard and "enjoy the fruits of his labor." Liberals, however, appear to be more in favor of Communism, in which the government owns everyone and everything and it decides what a person should and shouldn't have. In Communism, a person is not <em>self-sufficient</em>, as God intended them to be, but rather <em>completely dependent</em> upon the government. This kicks God out and sets the government up as God. Once again, liberal thought and doctrine spits in the face of God and the scriptures.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Third, Liberals often are in favor of <em>abortion</em>, a horrible practice of killing babies before they are born. They claim it is the woman's "right" to choose to not have a baby, and they have passed laws in favor of such. But Conservatives feel this is wrong, as it clearly is the taking of human life without the individual baby having the choice to live or not. What does the Bible say about abortion? A lot actually. For in the Bible, we are further told that, "LIFE" is in the blood. That means when a child is formed in it's mother's womb and it begins producing it's only blood supply, it is a <em>life</em>. To take away that <em>life</em> is <em>MURDER</em> in the scriptures.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So why do Liberals defend women in their desire to murder their own children, and attack conservatives who look at this as a pagan, immoral practice? Could it be once again that liberals are against God?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, liberals are in favor of trying to "right" what they view as "wrongs." They engage in racial policies like affirmative action, in gender policies like woman's lib, and more. And instead of allowing laws to apply to all people alike, they seek to grant certain rights or privileges on certain classes, genders, and races that are unfair to others. Why is this? They claim it's just "social justice" but who died and made them the judge?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in the Constitution, and they believe that ALL CITIZENS are equal under the law. Thus, they look at liberal policies as not only unconstitutional, but also irrational. If you look at them further, they are often "anti-biblical" as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So who is supposed to be in charge of "justice." Who is to judge others for all the wrong in the world? The Bible says it's GOD who is supposed to judge everyone in the last day. So why do liberals think that it's their job to JUDGE everyone and then hand out decrees and laws that are to "right the wrongs" of society. Could it be they are once again guilty of "playing-God?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Clearly conservatives and liberals disagree with one another. No one would argue with that. But it's strange that no one seems to be pointing out the fact that LIBERALS almost always are on the side that is against God and the Bible. And often, they are trying to play God themselves. Why is this? What is the reason that liberals are so "anti-God?" Could it be they are influenced by satanic forces? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Obviously there is something to that, especially when so many liberals love the book, "Rules for Radicals," a work that was dedicated to "LUCIFER!" Hmmm. Interesting, isn't it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Further, most liberals learn their liberal doctrines in SECULAR colleges, which oftentimes are full of professors who are renowned ATHEISTS who continually riducule and downgrade the idea of God. And while in college, many students often join organzations like Skull and Bones, the Jason Society, etc., which are groups started by people who were into LUCIFERIANISM, and which teach people how to gain power and influence in the world. After college, many people join groups like the MASONS, which according to Albert Pike is the "oldest religion" and is in fact, the worship of LUCIFER.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Liberals, also enjoy political organizing, and love to fund groups like ACORN, SEIU, and others that further endoctrinate people and propogate their anti-God and anti-bible ideals.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now back to our topic at hand: THE GREAT DIVIDE in our country. Could it be the divide comes from the liberals <em>dividing themselves</em> from what America was founded on? Could it be that they are going the way of evil, while conservatives are trying to <em>converse</em> the foundations of America, which was founded on God and the Bible? More plainly stated, "Could liberalism be nothing more than a movement of Satan to destroy America?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These questions you must answer yourself. All I know is there <em>is</em> DIVISION, and it's more rampant than it's ever been before. At first, America was founded as a Christian nation. But those Christian teachings have quickly erroded away. Now, it appears America is more of a <em>pagan</em> nation. And today we find conservatives who are trying to hold on to the Christian ideals of the founders and the Constitution are looked upon as "old fuddy-duddies" by modern liberals who think of themselves as "cultured," "refined," and "modernized." Yet, these same liberals don't seem to understand that they have been, and still are, rebelling against what founded the nation they are living in. They are <em>divided</em> from what America was founded on, and are actively showing their <em>divisive spirit</em> as they openly protest, campaign, and endoctrine others to follow them and their teachings. So dogmatic are they in their ways that they have become <em>militant</em> and are starting to <em>fight</em> all those who don't go along with them in their fanaticism. They truly believe they are right, and don't see how far they've gone down the leftist path to destruction. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What do conservatives do? Sadly, many of them have given up and are even joining the liberals. They are turning from what they once knew and believed, and accepting liberal teachings. But they can only go so far. They are "moderates." But their inablility to stand for what they believe in only empowers the liberal agenda. While those who do stand are viewed as "extremist" "right-wing" groups. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Division ensues and liberals go farther to the left, taking some with them, but forcing others even farther to the right. The division is getting greater and worseing more and more. But no one seems to say anything about it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Do you see the great divide? What do you think should be done? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-55850413274518859902011-11-11T07:13:00.000-08:002013-03-01T08:58:28.242-08:00How to Govern America Properly<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Our country is in a mess! And no one can argue with that statement. Economically, it's in decline, spiritually, it has strayed from God, and morally it has adopted many beliefs that undermine the very moral fabric of our society. In short, our country is going to Hell in a hand basket!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, who's to blame? The answer most often heard from pulpits across our land is that it's all "OUR" fault for electing politicians who are "progressives," "socialists" and "communistic." But I'm so tired of the blame being placed upon us. It's not our fault. It's the POLITICIANS fault, for it is they who are doing all the bad stuff in passing laws that only seek to "regulate" more, rather than allowing a free market system to work.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's like Benjamin Franklin said, "He who governs LEAST governs BEST!" If only politicians would realize this. If only their platform were, "Vote for me, and I'll do NOTHING if elected!" </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The other day I was thinking about how to solve all the problems in America. And I thought about it as a corporation. In a corporation, people own part of the company and own STOCKS. In other words, they are part owners in the business. They have a stake in the company. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, when the business does well, they receive either dividends or an increase in value of their stock. So potentially, the owners of the business (the shareholders) have the potential to prosper financially if the company makes a profit. However, they also take a loss if the company goes in the red. Thus, the companies very reason for existence is to make money and feed its owners.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So why isn't it like this in America? Why can't we run this nation the same way? Why can't Americans who own property (i.e. own stock) in America prosper as the country prospers?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We as a nation are now over 7 trillion dollars in debt. And sadly, the American people are expected by those in power to foot the bill. But they had no say in the spending of that money. So why should they have to pay it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The governing of this country is completely backwards. It's not like a business trying to make a profit, rather it's like a company that's trying to run a deficit on purpose, so it can sell more stock and try to get more cash to do more. The only thing is that its stock is worthless and the whole world knows it!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What if we started over in America? What if we got rid of the debt and started all over? And what if, (go with me here for a minute,) <em>what if</em> instead of the government LOSING money, it actually MADE money? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What if the American government stopped giving money away to everybody and spending on frivolous things of no lasting value, and instead INVESTED the money it receives in taxes and uses that money to make more money to in turn give back to the American people, the shareholders of the nation?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If only things worked that way! For I read a year or so ago that the nation of America has enough natural resources and minerals in its soil that if divided equally among it's poplulace, every American could have something like 5 million dollars apiece (I don't remember the exact number, but it was in the millions).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Can you imagine?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What if you were an American citizen, and when you are born, you were given 5 million dollars. They just gave it to you. Wouldn't that be awesome?</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why? Because it was what the nation had and it was a just nation that EQUALLY divided its wealth with its citizens, just like a company giving dividends to its stock holders. Wouldn't that be cool?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you lived in Alaska, you'd know what I'm talking about. In Alaska they give people about 1500 dollars a year, just to live in that state! Where does it come from? Is it tax money taken and given out as welfare? No! It's money from the OIL COMPANIES, who take oil out of Alaskan soil who in turn pay the citizens of Alaska for allowing them to let them take their oil. That's too cool! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But alas, in our country today, the Government does not want to do such a thing. Instead, they want to tax the rich to give to the poor. But that's not right! Why should one class of people get something for nothing while another class works to get what they have??? That doesn't make sense.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If I were in charge, I know what I would do. I would make America run like a business, and I would try to make that business make a profit, and not run in the red. I would then make sure to send dividends to NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of this country. (Note, I would only give it to people who were BORN here, and not to immigrants. There are many reasons for this, but I can't go into that now.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This would be an amazing endeavour. It would mean that all taxes given to the government MUST be used to turn a profit. In other words, they must be INVESTED in such a way as to make sure Americans got back MORE than what they paid in.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Can you imagine a system like this? America would be the greatest country in the world!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So if a company can run itself as a business and make a profit, why can't the federal government? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That's a good question. The answer is because the federal government is not in the business of MAKING money, it's only in the business of SPENDING money. And it does so a little too effectively (being now over 7 TRILLION dollars in debt). But where does this money go? The answer may surprise you. It goes several places. First it goes overseas. That's right. It goes to foreign countries and not to its own citizens! Through USAID and other organizations the U.S. government gives away money to foreign nations and gets absolutely nothing in return. Who's money is it? Why it's the American citizen's money! So why do others who aren't even Americans entitled to it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Can you imagine if a private company did this? Just imagine if they sold stock in their company, then they took that money and just gave it to their competition with no expectation of it being repaid. What would happen? Why the stock holders would get angry and dump all their stock and the company would go under! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Er, um, maybe I've said too much. Cause that's exactly what's happening with the U.S. It's spending all it's money and getting the stock holders in debt, all while claiming that they have to give "stimulus" in order to get the economy running again. In other words, they believe you have to "spend your way out of debt!" (No, really, that's what several politicians have actually said on tape!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The American government also spends money on domestic projects that are not profitable and not returnable. For example, we are hearing lately of the SOLYNDRA scandal, in which MILLIONS (or was it BILLIONS, I forget), of American's tax payer's money was giving to this company, and then it later went belly up and bankrupt. How does this happen? But it does and it happens quite often.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you don't remember anything else in this blog, just remember this: "THIS IS NOT HOW YOU GOVERN A COMPANY, MUCH LESS A NATION!" </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To give away the stockholders money to anyone and everyone with NO EXPECTATION of receiving anything in return is not only negligant but CRIMINAL! It is not only bankrupting the nation, but the citizens as well, as the debt incurred leads to high and massive inflation, making a person's money worth less and less. It's double robbery, taking for them and spending without their say so, and then making what they have left over worth next to nothing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So with this sad expose of the American situation exposed, the question is, "Would you like to know how to fix the problem?" The answer is simple, just do what the BIG BANKS do. That is, (and please get a hold of this), DON'T GIVE AWAY ANYTHING!!! (unless it's maybe a toaster!)</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In order to make a profit, you must sell something that is worth something. That's common business knowledge. But if you already have money, the best way to make money is to LOAN it at interest, and not GIVE it away. For the simple fact is that once it's given, it's gone, and you'll never see it again, and if you borrowed it to give away, then all you get in return is more DEBT. And what's worse is that if you borrow money and then you give it away for nothing, you end up still having to pay it back! How is that profitable? How does that make business sense?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now here's where the difference is. Corporations and Banks make profit. They either sell a product or lend money. But the problem with them is they usually are corrupt. They will sell cheap products for high prices, or they will loan money at high interest rates, and this is how they profit off of people. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This used to not be the case, but with the great lack of morals in our society this is what happens, as greed usually takes over in a person's heart and they seek to "cheat" people by selling them less then adaquate products for overinflated prices.</div>
<br />
This is a sad situation, but even though it's taking advantage of a free market system, that doesn't mean that a free market system is bad. Captialism must have morality to work. Unscrupulous capitalists are nothing more than thieves. While moral and honest capitalists are hardworking men who are only trying to put food on the table and take care of their families.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So how should the government govern? Simple. They should stop GIVING money, but simply LOAN it. And they should loan it as very low interest rates. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, the price of college is outrageous nowadays. So why doesn't the government say, "Okay, we will loan you the money at 1 percent interest." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then the person can get a loan and actually afford to pay it back. He comes out better, because private loan companies and banks charge WAY MORE THAN only 1 percent, getting a person in debt for life, and completely unable to pay back the full amount. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If the government loaned the money it would suceed, as it would be earning 1 percent until that person pays back their college loan debt. In other words, they'd MAKE money while they HELPED someone, without going into debt!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See how the government HELPED that person, but at the same time it robbed no one. It is making money rather than stealing money through taxes which it then gives away in things like pell grants, etc. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the case of foreign countries, American should NEVER GIVE THEM ANY MONEY, period. For this takes out money from our own cash flow in our own nation. But if it does decide to pass money to other countries, it should be in the form of a LOAN, and at HIGH INTEREST RATES. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, a country wants to better itself and it needs capital to do so. So they come to America and ask for a loan of 100 million dollars. The government could say, "Okay, we'll happily give you a loan for that amount, but you must pay it back in so many years, at an interest rate of 10 percent!"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If the country agrees and pays it, then wouldn't America be a much better, richer, profitable nation?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All these principles are so basic, so easy to grasp. Yet our government continues to ignore them and plunge further into debt. WHY?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, there is a reason for the spendthriftery of our national government. They are getting in debt on purpose, and I hope you know the reason. If not, you should really study history. It all goes back to the international bankers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Illuminati, a global one world conspiracy, and more, in which the goal is a one world government and not a world with many different nations. But that's another blog for another time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The only way to govern America properly is to run it like a business with the goal of MAKING money, rather than SPENDING itself into debt. This can still happen and should happen, but it will only happen if American citizens work together to vote out the current administration (I'm talking about Dems and Reps alike. They are both corrupt and are in favor of spending money.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Very few people know the truth about America, nor do they study how it was initially set up. In the beginning, there were absolutely no taxes set up on the American people. They were sick of taxation by Great Britian, so they made it a point to do away with taxes all together. So how did the Federal government get money? The answer was through DUTIES on foreign nations through trade. If a country traded with America, they had to pay duty on all they sought to sell in America, and that money went into the coffer of the treasury of the government. It was making money not off the citizenry, rather off of other countries. This left the typical American citizen to work hard and profit himself, as almost the entire world had to come to America to buy his goods. America SOLD to other nations and made a profit, while it made them pay duty to sell their goods to us. That means the government made money both ways!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If only we could get back to a system like this in which the government was not in debt, did not GIVE away countless TRILLIONS of dollars, and didn't expect their poplulace to pay for all their wreckless SPENDING through wanting to tax them even more. For such a nation is not governed properly. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let me close with this illustration. Let's say a guy comes into your home and says that he's going to take over your finances, and all you have to do is trust him and he'll make you money. Would you trust him? I don't know. I think I might be mistrustful from the git-go. But let's say he does so and he takes your money and invests it and over time he makes you a millionare. Wouldn't you be ecstatic? Wouldn't you appreciate what he did for you? Of course you would.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now let's look at it on the other side of the coin. What if a guy came into your house and said, "I'm taking over your finances whether you like it or not, and there's nothing you can do about it!" And then he shows you a legal document granting him that right. Then he takes your money and gets you so far into debt you'll never get out of it, ever! How would you feel? Obviously, you'd be angry and ungrateful, wishing he'd just leave you and your money alone!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So which system of government do we have based on the illustration above? If you guessed the second one, you are right!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But it doesn't have to be that way. We can still turn the country around and get it back to what it used to be. We can still elect officials who can fix this mess and get us back on tract to a profitable pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. But that time to do so is getting very short, as we have people in positions of power today who believe profit is evil. They want to "distribute the wealth" and spread it around. But why don't they just get back to trying to make America great again, and making it a profitable nation like it once was in which the <em>American Dream</em> was: "If you work hard, you'll suceed!" </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-82681318361374458042011-10-01T08:26:00.000-07:002011-10-01T08:26:47.144-07:00The Importance of Property Owners Voting<div align="justify">When our founding fathers set up the constitution, they knew exactly what they were doing. They were setting up a system of government with checks and balances, knowing that this had to be done, as one side would want more power than the others. Thus, they made a way that government could be kept in check and unable to gain too much power over the people, thus giving the people liberty.</div><div align="justify">Sadly, much of this liberty was lost over the years, as following generations of politicians misunderstood the founding father's intentions. And probably one of the worst things that ever happened to America was the horrible changes to the voting laws.</div><div align="justify">In the Constitution only PROPERTY OWNERS were allowed to vote. This is important, as they actually had a stake in the country. THEY were the ones who were true AMERICANS. They <em>owned</em> part of America through the owning of land.</div><div align="justify">It's like a modern day company with shareholders. Those who own shares have a right to vote. And their vote should be heard. However, who in their right mind would allow outsiders who own NO SHARES to vote for what's best for the company. That just doesn't make sense, does it?</div><div align="justify">But this is what has happened in America today. We find that the right to vote has been changed from just the shareholders, or the land owners, to anyone who is born in America, or who comes here legally and becomes a citizen. That means that now instead of people voting who have a stake in the country, you have people voting who don't own any land, and they only vote based upon their opinions, their ideals, their feelings, or their party, rather than voting on what's best for them and their own property.</div><div align="justify">We see as the voting laws were changed in America that voting wasn't only for what was best for the landowner and the country, but rather voting became what was best for the personal voter him or herself.</div><div align="justify">In other words, when the country was set up, only landowners could vote, and they voted based upon what was best for each other's land. They wanted freedom to do what they please on their own property. But as more and more people who were unable to buy and secure land were given the vote, we see a massive change from that of those voting who had a share in the country to those who had no share in the nation. And we find many non-landowners voting only for what was best for THEM, not what was best for their neighbor. This meant that all a politician had to do was promise <em>them</em> something, and if they were to vote for <em>him </em>or<em> her</em> then the politician would pass laws to help them. </div><div align="justify">What happened next is the history of welfare, as more and more politicians promised something for nothing to non-landowners. And to pay for it, the landowners were taxed the more in order to give to those who had not. Redistribution of wealth ensued with the government paying God, and trying to decided who deserved what, taking more from the landowners, and giving it to those who did not own land.</div><div align="justify">Can you imagine a system like this? Imagine the example of the company I gave above. And imagine a company telling its shareholders, "<em>We are going to give the right to vote to all the customers of this company</em>." And then whenever there is a vote, the customers vote to give themselves more stuff for free. Who pays for it? The company, and the shareholders, who eventually find their shares are almost worthless, because the company is no longer making a profit! So what do they do? They become angry and sell their shares to anyone who will buy them, and the company eventually fails because of it, and the company and the shareholders have no say on how to run the company and make it prosper.</div><div align="justify">This is EXACTLY what's happening in America today. Those who own property are taxed to death and looked at as the bad guys, while those without are given the right to vote, and they vote to give themselves even more. How can this not eventually bankrupt the whole system? And who in their right mind would believe that the landowners would sit idly by and take it without trying to do something about it, either selling their land and getting away from such a corrupt system, or trying to change the system in order to be allowed the freedom they once enjoyed to run their land as they saw fit.</div><div align="justify">In America, we now see that there are many landowners who are failing. But the very rich ones have figured out ways to buddy up to the government and get special favors so they don't lose their land. It's like this, and one again I'll use the illustration of a modern-day company.</div><div align="justify">The company is going bankrupt, and the share-holders are angry that non-shareholders are voting to get freebies from the company. So in order to keep the company afloat that they love so much, they see the only way is to become the head CEO of the company, so they seek power and then give special favors to the other share-holders, even though the voting customers are against it. The shareholders then make secret deals to make sure their shares stay high, and they are viewed as a thriving company, even though they are on the verge of bankrupcy. And the shareholders chose "lobbyists" to lobby the CEO for even more special favors. </div><div align="justify">What happens? The CEOs resign, because they can't keep the whole fiasco afloat. The shareholders loose everything. And the voting customers get angry and blame the company and the shareholders, claiming it's all their fault. War ensues, and the company is destroyed all together.</div><div align="justify">Do you see the correlation with what is happening in America? How unfair it truly is to allow people to vote who don't even have a share in the nation! Why allow them to vote when they don't even have any property, or any stake in the American company?</div><div align="justify">If they try to undermine the property owner's rights to own property and enjoy what they have, then don't they cut their own throats when they obtain property themselves? Why can't we all be happy owning property. Wasn't that once the American Dream?</div><div align="justify">It used to be you could work hard in America, save up, and eventually buy your own land and home. Now, those days are almost gone. It's because non-shareholders are cornering the market on the vote and are only voting for what's best for themselves, and not what's best for others. They can't see that they are destroying what they could also enjoy if they would just work hard to accomplish.</div><div align="justify">I'll close with this. Just imagine if you will the company and the shareholders holding the vote themselves. They would vote for what was best for the company and what was best for the shareholders. They would want <em>profit</em> for all and each other. As the company grows, they would then sell more shares, and more people would be shareholders. As the number of shareholders grows so do the number of votes. And each one would then vote for more prosperity for themselves and the country. They would want freedom to hold on to their own lands, and not give it away to others who didn't work for it or buy it with their own hard earned money. They would vote not to get in debt. They would vote to make sure the company doesn't spend more than it has. And they would vote that the company do more, spread more, and do more business, open more offices, and sell more product. They would all prosper, as they all did what was BEST FOR THE COMPANY and the PEOPLE of that company (the shareholders).</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">If only people who understand this model would look at America the same way. How could you ever give the right to vote to those who don't understand how business works? And how could you let them vote if they don't have a stake in the endeavour? It just doesn't make sense.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Truly, the founding fathers knew the importance of giving the vote only to PROPERTY OWNERS, rather than to all citizens. If only America could go back to the simple and important ideal.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-38969981851895330212011-09-19T13:01:00.000-07:002011-09-19T13:01:04.224-07:00The Power of Written Literature<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many people don't understand the power of the printed page. However, in the history of human beings, we find that man loves to write things down. And throughout the history of man, we find that often, a man's writings have started profound movements which have turned the course of human history. Let's just look at a few of them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">THE PENTATEUCH</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of all the books in the world, the oldest is of course the Bible, which contains the book of Job, which lays claim on the oldest book in the world. But the first five books of the Bible are those written by Moses himself, a man who God called out of his life of nobility to lead his people Israel to freedom. Moses wrote these books, which today are called "The Law" and it set up a system of worship, law, and customs of the Jewish People. Quite possibly no other book in the world had as much influence as the first five books of Moses. In these books, the Jews find their history, their faith, and their means of redemption. It was through a blood sacrifice of an animal as demanded by the law. Thankfully, God later gave us the New Testament, and salvation is no longer through man's shedding of blood, rather through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the LAMB OF GOD!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">These books are still studied, believed, and followed by Jews today some 3500 years after they were written, and are the foundational books of the Jewish religion.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We also find modern law coming from these books, and the ten commandments which do well to show us what makes a moral society.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">THE KORAN</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This book was written by Mohammed, who claims to be a prophet of Allah, and who claims he was instructed to write down some things. He writes about supposed visions he saw, as well as giving rules for his followers, which today call themselves Muslims. They are followers of a religion they call "Islam," which means "submission." In Islam, a person <em>must</em> submit to the Koran and its teachings. And the ultimate goal of Islam is to bring the whole world under <em>submission</em> to the Islamic faith. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Koran has become the most important book for followers of Mohammed, and they use it as their law book, as well as their war book, in waging "jihads" or "holy wars" upon others. Many Muslims believe that if they kill a Christian or a Jew then they will be given many virgens in paradise to spend eternity with. This is their incentive for "murdering" others. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Today, Islam is one of the biggest religions in the world, and it continues growing with its "submit" or "die" mentality. As a book, the Koran, or "Qu'aran" as others spell it. Has had quite an impact on the middle east.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">ERASMUS' GREEK/LATIN NEW TESTAMENT</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">After the invention of the printing press by Johan Gutenberg, the world desired more books, and more learning. And, one of the most sought out books on printing presses in the 1500's was the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, one of the most notable scholars of his day. Erasmus traveled around Europe looking in the world's most eruditious libraries trying to find as many manuscripts of the New Testament that he could find. He collated these together and then made his own Greek/Latin New Testament, beleiving that the texts he chose (the Antioquian line rather than the Alexandrian line) were the closest to the original autographs of the New Testament. Upon his publication of his work, and subsiquent other editions of it (each one getting better than the one before), many scholars in his day bought his work, and many Protestants worked hard at translating it into their own language. This included Spanish, English, Russian, Italian, German, and more. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">And through this revival of going back to the scriptures for knowledge, eventually the REFORMATION took place, or the age of enlightenment in which ideas and learning were openly discussed and dispersed after centuries of being repressed by the corrupt church of the middle ages which desired to leave people ignorant and blind. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Erasmus' work further gave men a desire to have the pure words of God in their own langauge, and this eventually led the the pure and infallible translation known as the KING JAMES AUTHORIZED VERSION of the Bible, a translation done by the intelligent and learned men of their time (or any time for that matter), many of which spoke and wrote 12 different langagues. This version then later lead to more true Christian revival in the world than in any other time in history! First it was the first great awakening, then the second great awakening, and then there was revival in England and the United States in the 1800's. All of which came about because man had studied out, returned to, and preached from the true and pure words of God! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">England was a righteous and religious nation for decades after the King James Bible, with the common people knowing the Bible like the back of their hand. Later America too was a nation of Bible readers and Bible believers, but as England, they too quickly fell into apostasy as new doctrines seeped into the nation and the church. Soon German Rationalism questioned the infallibility of the Bible and the miracles of Jesus. Then Lyle questioned the timeline of the Bible, claiming there couldn't have been "thousands of years" rather "hundreds of thousands" or even "millions" of years in man's history.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Reading through Lyle's book, a young Bible College graduate named Charlie Darwin allowed his faith in the word of God to be destroyed, and he later wrote a book entitled, "ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES," in which he <em>theorized</em> that man and beast <em>EVOLVED</em> over many years, and were not the product of the direction creation of God.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">His work had a great impact on scientists, many of which did not want to think about God, and eventually led to the teaching of the THEORY of EVOLUTION, or the teaching that man came from apes, and that the world was not "created" rather it "exploded" out of absolutely nothing (a silly and offensive notion if you actually think about it). Forget the fact that this <em>theory</em> could never be proven in a laboratory, yet many so-called scientists jumped on the band wagon and preached this theory as though it was fact. "Survival of the fittest" became their rally cry, and they bragged upon being the descendents of monkeys, frogs, earthworms, and amoebas, (sounds a little silly, doesn't it?) </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Evolution theory taught that man were nothing but animals, and the inevitable end of such nonsense was that man would actually start living like such, and that's exactly what happened as man did not evolve, but rather <em>devolved</em> into animalistic tendencies, living only to fornicate, play, drink, and fight. This lead to many wars to come in which countless millions were slaughtered, especially the Jews in Germany, who Hitler looked at as "vermin" or animal "pests" that must be exterminated (Hitler believed in Evolution hook, line and sinker, by the way!) And since then evolution has made man not better but worse, as he gives in to his basest desires and instincts, rather than looking towards his Creator for guidance in life. All this from books. First Lyle's, then Darwin's. I wonder how many died because of Lyle and Darwin talking people out of their faith in God, and allowing them to partake in animalistic atrocities, while thinking there was nothing wrong with it, as they themselves were animals.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">UNCLE TOM'S CABIN</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In America, a woman named Harriet Beecher Stowe, wrote a book. It's full title was, "Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Life Among the Lowly" (was she calling black people "lowly?"). In her book she lamblasted the white man and made him look like an angry slave driver who only lived to whip and beat his property, while the black man was looked upon as a poor, mistreated, misunderstood, and destitute, yearning to be free.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Her book sparked an outcry in the North and eventually led to a Civil War, in which the North thought they needed to free the negroes in the South. Countless thousands upon thousands of both blacks and whites died in that war, and it was all over a book... What a minute, ... well, um, er, actually, that's not what it was about at all! But, that's what modern writers want you to think. Actually, the war was about TARIFFS from the North on the people in the South. Yep, they wanted to TAX the south about 30 to 40% on everything they sold. But that's another story for another day.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Anyway, back to Stowe and her book. There might have been some bad masters who did evil to their slaves, but not all Southerners were that way. In fact, if you look at a slave in the South in the 1850's and 1860's and compare him to a modern blue collar worker today, you might not be able to see who the real slave is. You see, slaves in the South only had to work 7 months out of the year. They then had 5 months off to do as they pleased. (Picking cotton was SEASONAL, and that was what they were supposed to do). They also were given an ax, a shotgun, and even a family in most cases by their masters, and were even given land to build their own houses. Boy, what a nice thing that would be! Imagine having to work only 7 months out of the year, and being able to own your own land without paying property taxes or rent, and being able to raise a family in your own house that you built with your own hands, and then you can fish and hunt and do whatever you want for 5 months! That'd be awesome! What a far cry from today, having to work 40 to 80 hour weeks all week long, and then having to pay property tax, income tax, sales tax, etc. and then only getting a week or two off every year for vacation. Hmmm. Makes you think, doesn't it? Who's the real slave?!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yet, Mrs. Stowe's book impacted thousands of minds, and made hundreds of thousands of people stereotype the Southern people and demonize them into being these EVIL reprobates who only lived to <em>rape</em> and <em>beat</em> up black people. How strange a book can make people believe something that isn't true.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The facts are that the majority of Southerners we church going, Bible-believing Christians. Sure they owned slaves, but most of them treated them like family. The expected of them to fulfill their duties and responsibilities, and they treated them with dignity and respect, buying them clothes, giving them shelter, and even freeing them themselves in their later years to live out their lives on their own piece of land.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">THE RED BOOK</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Communism is a stupid form of government. In its desire to make people the same, it doesn't take into account the fundamental truth that ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT THE SAME! Some people are naturally hard workers and to work hard to get ahead. Other people are born lazy and want to be so their entire lives. We who work hard should not have to stop working to be like the lazy people. And, the lazy people shouldn't have to work hard just to like us. We should all be free to do what we please and then see how it turns out. Usually, if you work hard, you can get ahead and enjoy the fruit of your labours. And most likely, if you are lazy, you'll end up with nothing, be despised by others who look at you as a lazy bum, and end up on the streets and hungry. But no government should ever interfere with man's liberty to be what he wants, whether it be a hard worker or a lazy good for nothing bum.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But communism does just that. I regulates people and puts rules on them telling them what they can and can't do. Then, it mandates that all men must have the same things, and they must allow the government to take care of them. This makes a person completely dependent upon the government, and over generations makes them completely unable to do anything for themselves. In other words, it leaves them devestated and unable to do for themselves, much less think for themselves. Any opposition to communism, communist ideals, or communistic governmental law and practice is usually met with dire consequences. Thus, communism rapes the very soul of man and his freedom and individual liberty.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">With that stated, it's interesting, if not ironic, that the only way that communism takes root is through "literature." It is an "intellectual" religion which preys upon the "learned," and gains ground usually through the printed page on universities and colleges. It further tries to convince people that they need to be "fair" and it's not fair for one person to have more than another, so what is needed is a communistic government to be the decider of what's fair and they should be empowered to dictate fairness to others. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Almost all communist governments started with books. Take Mao Tse-Tung. He wrote what he called his "RED BOOK," and mandated that it should not only be read, but it must be KEPT IN THE POSSESSION OF EVERY HOUSEHOLD. Man's free thought was not allowed. Man had to read what was in the book and think according to its ideals. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">In all communistic countries, the pattern is always the same: First the literature, then the revolution, then the oppression. It has always been the same and the cycle continues today. That is the power of the printed page. For who in their right mind would want a tyrannical government to take over their land and kill 30 million of their own people? No one, right? But those who followed Stalin and Lenin were convinced that communism was the right system, and they fought for it. Yet it didn't work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Today we see communists rising their ugly heads again. With books like "Rules for Radicals" they are once more trying to gain the college student's trust, and sway them into thinking that "fairness" would be the best policy, and "social justice" is a necessary means to level the playing field. But they all forget one thing. There is no communist country on the face of the earth that has ever prospered, or been made better through communism than it was before.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">THE BIBLE</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally, of all the books written in the world in the human history of man, there has never been a book like the Bible. The has never been a book so powerful. Although other books might be able to sway man's thinking and even his actions, no other book can or will ever be able to do what the Bible can, which is SAVE A MAN'S SOUL!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of all the world's books, there is only one which claims to be written by GOD himself. That is the Bible. Albeit men <em>wrote</em> the Bible with their own hands, we are told in the scriptures that they did it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. That is they wrote or they spoke God's words. These words were then recorded on paper and placed into the Bible. They are GOD'S WORDS, and not MAN'S WORDS. No other book on earth can make this claim.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Even the Bible itself tells us that word of God is <em>powerful</em> in Hebrew chapter four. There we read:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">12 <strong>For the word of God <i>is </i>quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and <i>is </i>a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">13 <strong>Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things <i>are </i>naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Notice this passage says the word is <em>quick</em>. This is the Old English way of saying it <em>was ALIVE</em>! </div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is also<em> powerful</em>, so much so, it's likened unto a sharp sword with two edges which can not only cut through the physical, but through the spiritual as well! </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Men do not discern the Bible, rather it <em>discerns</em> them. For the Bible is the only book in the world that tells man who they are, where they came from, and what to do to get to heaven. It shows man what he is, A SINNER in need of SALVATION.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yes, the Bible is a powerful book! What has been the fruit of the Bible? Why we find the forming of the religion of the Jews from the Old Testament, and the beginning of Christianity from the New Testament. How many countless millions of people have become followers of Jesus Christ through reading of the scriptures? Many of which became godly Christians who lived good godly lives!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Can you imagine what the world would be like without the Bible? It be just plum awful! For people would instead be following communism, or evolution, or Islam, all religions with no LOVE, no HOPE, no LIBERTY, and no FREEDOM! Further, men would not know what sin is, as only the Bible tells us what sin is, and how we should refrain from it. Imagine a world in which everyone is completely given over to sin and degeneration. Imagine men who thought little about rape, murder, theft, and practiced it on a daily basis without ever feeling sorry for it. They'd be like ferocious animals who cared only about themselves and would attack anyone without feeling or pity. The world would be a horrible place to live!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yet, the word of God is what tells us what is good, what is true, what is righteous. And in the Bible it gives us the ten commandments and tells us to refrain from those things. By doing so, we keep society moral, and a moral society is usually a free society! </div><div style="text-align: justify;">What power there is in the printed word! It affects the way men think. And God's word affects man's thinking for the better, while man's words affects man's thinking for the worse.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">All literature affects those who read it, some for the better and some for the worse. But you can't ever go wrong reading the <em>powerful</em> word of God, the KING JAMES BIBLE!</div>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-34079150080334383822011-08-25T15:56:00.000-07:002011-08-25T15:56:50.724-07:00The 1602 Valera Purified New Testament now AvailableWe now have the Valera 1602 Purified in Spanish available online via Amazon.com at a price of $16.02. (Price is intended to honor the year of Valera's work of 1602).<br />
<br />
It can be ordered by visiting:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.createspace.com/3676224">https://www.createspace.com/3676224</a><br />
<br />
We are practicing and learning how to use P.O.D. (print on demand), so we have taken the .pdf file of the Valera 1602 Purified New Testament and cut and copied it page by page to make the New Testament of this translation available, as they are hard to get today. <br />
<br />
Thankfully, though, more whole Bibles shall be printed soon, as the plan is to print the newest, updated version in December. I hope we can find a way to make these available online as well.<br />
<br />
Sincerely, <br />
<br />
Robert BreakerR.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-41670531659094678882011-08-22T14:19:00.000-07:002013-03-01T08:59:05.478-08:00Southern Values<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Like the old saying goes, "I'm Southern by the Grace of God!"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've always counted myself blessed to have been born in the South. The main reason is, SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY. The South is known world-wide as being probably the friendliest place on earth. Why is this?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reason is simple. It's because it's the BIBLE BELT. You see the South for ages has been the place where there has been more GOSPEL WITNESS than probably any place on earth. Settlers to the South were usually true Bible Believing Christians. If they weren't, they at least believed in and read the Bible on a daily basis. Immigrants who came to the South were usually quickly converted, or at least learned that the SOUTHERN WAY was to go to Church on Sunday, so they went. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the South, people readily ask each other, "<em>What Church do you go to?</em>" And, no one seems offended by this question. (You ask that of people of up North and see what kind of response you'll get. They'll usually get offended that you would ask them such a question!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The plain simple truth is the Old South has been <em>gospel saturated</em> for hundreds of years. And that saturation of the Bible and Bible Teaching is what lead to the SOUTHERN VALUES, or the moral living, politeness, and hospitality of the Southern folk. In other words, the more people read and believe the Bible, the more moral, upstanding, pleasant, and kind they are, PERIOD!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've always liked this. I've travelled a lot. I've been to New York City six times in my life, and I've been to 49 of the 50 states, and I'm telling you there's nothing like the <em>South. </em>Dixie is the greatest place on earth!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's hard to find those <em>Southern Values</em> in any other place. Up North they just don't smile, and say, "<em>How you doing?</em>" or blurt out just a simple "<em>Hi!</em>" as you walk pass someone on the street. No, up there they ignore one another on purpose!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The other thing about the South is how people will wave to you when you drive by them. That just doesn't happen up North around "city-folk." But down South you can drive for hours without seeing another human being or another car, and you are so glad you do when you see one, you can't help but lift a few fingers from off the steering wheel to wave to oncoming traffic when they get close. That's the South! They're so nice, they'll not only talk to you, they'll wave to you when you are passing them at 65 miles an hour!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So back to why the South is so nice and friendly. It's because of the values of its forefathers, people who were usually religious, church-going, and God-fearing. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I believe this is what's missing today in society and even in America. For moral people make for good people. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly, even the once great South isn't what it used to be. I remember even as a child (and I'm only 37 years old), that you could drive up to Winn-Dixie or Piggly Wiggly (Grocery Stores in the South), and you could leave your keys in the ignition of your car with the windows open. (Just try that today, anywhere! Your car will be gone before you know it!).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I also remember leaving the front door of your house unlocked. Folks from a generation or two back used to tell me that they would do one better then that. They'd always leave their front and back doors OPEN in order to get a breeze through the house (as that was before air conditioning). Can you imagine doing that today?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My how times have changed!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But with the changing of times have come the changing of values. People not only in the South but world-wide are growing even more immoral every day. It's common to hear of people getting into fist fights, gangs to engage in gun-fights, etc. Crime is everywhere! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And even though the South is catching up with the times, it's still not as bad as the rest of the country, or the rest of the world. Southern Values are still in our blood, even though our youngins (a southern term) don't seem to be as dogmatic about it as we were.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To many Southern folk, fornication is still a sin. Adultery is something that is not only not right, but something that should have the death penalty on it! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll never forget the time I was speaking with an old Southern woman and she told me that she had never heard about or known about what "homosexuality" was. She said it wasn't until she was about 75 years old that her husband explained it to her. After he did, she just about fell off her chair, and then said, "<em>What? There's people that do that? Why? That's just plum gross!</em>" </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yep, we Southerners still know right from wrong. Or at least we haven't been "edumucated" (Southern slang for <em>educated</em>) into accepting certain modern things that the world says we should <em>tolerate</em>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly, however, many of the next generation Southerners are chosing evil rather than the light.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think the reason that the South was once so moral, in comparison to the rest of the world, is that it not only was a BIBLE Society, and the Bible breeds morality, while Evolution and higher Education breed immorality, but because the South in the most part is an agragarian society. That is, there are many people in the South who have learned how to live off the land. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When you plant crops, you have to pray a lot. That is, you have to ask God to let them grow and to keep off the pestilence, hurricanes, etc. That's your livelihood, and if you don't get to harvest that years crops, you won't have anything to sell to the market.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Compare this with the city-folk up North. What do they do that's ever outside their control? They usually don't have to rely on God at all. Instead, they learn from an early age what people call "Street smarts." In other words they learn how to fend for themselves and get what they want. Usually, this leads to them becoming immoral in later years, as they get accostumed to getting what they want in any means necessary.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So maybe this is a strong reason why there's a difference between Northerners and Southerners. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And if you've ever lived down South you'd know why the Southerners are so nice, friendly, and giving towards others. It's cause they have it to give.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've got a neighbor in Alabama that's a good example. He plants watermelons every year. He gets so many there is no way he can eat them all. So he puts them in the back of his pickup and just takes them all around to the neighbors and gives them away. (Boy are they good!) He also gives them away at Church. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why does he do this? Cause if he didn't, they'd just sit on the vine and rot. This way he feels good, as he's helping others. But in return, people don't forget his kindness, and often they'll stop by his house and bring him some tomaters (Southern term for Tomatoes), squash, turnip greens, etc, as they too planted more than they could eat so they decided to pass on the blessing to someone else. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To Southerners, what God gives them really is a blessing from God. But up North, everything a guy gets he usually brags about getting by his own means. See the difference? One gives God the glory, the other steals the glory for himself. (And up North people usually are quick to get welfare, and they get used to getting something for nothing. It's no longer a gift from one individual to another, it's an <em>entitlement</em> they feel like they deserve, and they get angry if they don't get it!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, it's not just the watermelons that make me glad to be a Southerner. It's much more. It's my heritage. I can say I've come from other Southerners who were nice, godly, people who loved others and gave what they could to help them out. I've also learned a lot from others who are not only willing to pass on their blessings, but to teach me hands-on how to do things in order to prosper myself. Their attitude isn't to look at me as a "Mark" (A Northern term for people you can try to milk for something), rather to someone they can impart knowledge to in order for me to pass it along to someone else. And they've instilled in me the desire to teach as much as I can to others so they can do the same.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the South it's about being self-supporting, and independent, and teaching others how to be the same.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yep, I enjoy being a Southerner. And I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. I feel blessed to be who I am. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But sadly, I wish I wasn't alone. I wish my SOUTHERN VALUES would not just be mine, and not just be regional. I wish they would be national. I wish they were AMERICAN VALUES. I wish they were even more, I wish they were AMERICA'S POLITICAL VALUES. In fact, I wish they were even more than that. I wish they were GLOBAL VALUES!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I wish the whole world would just be cordial, hospitable, and righteous. But I doubt that will ever happen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, I guess I'll just have to be content knowing I'm part of an elite group known world-wide as the "friendliest" most "hospitable" group of people on the planet.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-25247729695402613622011-08-20T17:28:00.000-07:002011-08-20T17:28:42.052-07:00My Books Available OnlineI've been going through the last couple of weeks and trying to figure out how to get my books available online and I've finally be able to do so. I'm still working on it, but I have a bookstore now. Anyone interested can go to the following link to see my books.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://www.rrb3.com/bookstore/bookstore_index.htm">http://www.rrb3.com/bookstore/bookstore_index.htm</a></span>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-23609212960533306662011-06-23T14:32:00.000-07:002011-06-23T14:32:02.369-07:00Liberty vs. Liberation<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">LIBERTY</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Bible tells us much about <em>liberty</em>, and in almost every reference, it speaks of it as something God gives. The first occurance of the word is found in Leviticus 25:10. There we read: </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Notice God is speaking, and He is the one granting <em>liberty</em> to others through His law. Notice also in the context of something being "hallow" or "holy." We know God is a holy God, and it is <em>He</em> who grants liberty to sinful man. That liberty is so that man to might live holy in doing what He says. In other words, God gives man freedom to freely serve Him. This is known as free will. God gives man the freedom to chose between right and wrong. But man is supposed to choose right, especially when he's been given God's law, which tells him what he's supposed to do to please God.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In Psalm. 119:45, we read of King David saying:</div><h3 style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">And I will walk at<b> liberty</b>: for I seek thy precepts.</span></h3><div style="text-align: justify;">Here we find David saying he will walk at liberty, and he will seek out God's precepts. In other words, he will follow God's law and obey, because it was God who granted him the liberty to do so.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Through many other passages in scripture, we find clearly that God is He who grants liberty, and He has given us His precepts (the Bible) for us to follow. We then are to obey Him and do what he says. This is our duty and is why we have been given liberty. Liberty, or freedom, is therefore a gift from God, and is granted us for us to do right and live right, not for us to do wrong. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">LIBERATION</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The word "<em>liberation</em>" comes from the same root word as "<em>liberty</em>." But liberation is not always a good thing. And, interestingly enough, the word "liberation" is not in the Bible, while the word "liberty" is.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
When I hear of the word "<em>liberty</em>," I immediately think of America, the land of the free. We in the United States were founded as a government of freedom for all. And, we started by our founding fathers acknowledging God as the great granter of freedom.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">On the other hand, when I hear the word "<em>liberation</em>," I automatically think of something entirely different, as the word is mostly used today in the context of the modernistic teaching of "liberation theology." This ideology teaches certain people are "oppressed" and they should "struggle" against their "oppressors." But this type of teaching leaves God out entirely! Further, it seeks bloodshed, violence, and civil unrest, rather than peace, goodwill, and Jesus' teaching of forgiveness. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is, then, a difference between <em>liberty</em> and <em>liberation. </em>Biblically, God gives man <em>liberty</em>,<em> </em>not so he can do evil, but rather good. However, man is inheritantly evil, and subject to sin. Because of this, man must be redeemed. But God took care of this, as Jesus Christ paid for the sins of mankind on the cross of Calvary. Man can be "<em>liberated</em>" from his sins, but not by their own merit, rather only by trusting Jesus Christ's finished work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sadly, man has twisted this sound, Bible teaching. Many modernist preachers today don't believe in man's right to be free. Nor do they recieve God's liberation at Calvary as sufficient. Instead, they believe governments should have power over men, and those governments should be active now in "liberating" certain groups, classes, races and genders of people. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">If this be the case, then where is God in their system? He's entirely left out. The government then becomes the "liberator" rather than God, and it makes its own laws. Eventually, the government takes the place of God, and it's laws supercede those of the Bible. And, instead of following God and His laws that are "just," man through "social <em>just</em>ice" declares it's his duty (instead of God's) to right all wrongs. And he does so through lobbying the government to forward his cause. What is his cause? It is simply stated, "vengance" or "punishment" towards others he feels have mistreated someone else in some way. <br />
Not liking the way the world is, he tries to turn the world upside down and hopes by so doing, <em>he</em> can give men freedom. This then leads to him becoming his own god, who plays God in declaring himself powerful enough to grant freedom to others. He thinks He's "the liberator" rather than God. And by so doing, he takes away man's liberty in Christ.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Bible warns us of those who try to take away one's liberty in Christ Jesus. We read it in Galatians:</div><h3 style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: (Gal. 2:4)</span></h3><h3 style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"> Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Gal. 5:1)</span></h3><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.</strong> (Gal. 5:13)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here we are warned of others who try to spy out our liberty in Christ, and they seek to entangle us in a yoke of bondage, while they use their liberty for an occasion of the flesh. Rather than loving one another, they try to "enslave" people, for you can't free one group without enslaving another.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But in the Bible, we find that these type of people are not consistent. They don't want freedom for all, rather only freedom for some (the only ones they support), and this freedom is usually so they can <em>sin, </em>not so they can do right. These <em>liberators </em>are not free themselves, for they have become servants of corruption, rather than servants of God.<br />
<br />
Today we see these modern day "liberators" are really only trying to liberate themselves from God and his laws (the Bible). They might claim to be religious, or even do-gooders, who seek only to liberate others from oppression. But the truth is they only trying to liberate people from God and his truth. In short, they are trying to free people from God in order to enslave them to sin and Satan. <br />
A few more Bible verses about liberty are as follows:<br />
<br />
<strong>Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.</strong> (2 Cor. 3:17)<br />
<br />
<strong>So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. </strong>(James 1:12)<br />
<br />
<strong>But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. </strong>(James 1:25)<br />
<br />
<strong>As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. </strong>(1 Pet. 2:16)<br />
<br />
True liberty is freedom to serve God of a free conscience. It is not freeing people from oppression, for often those who seek to "liberate" others don't do so of a pure heart, but rather with their own agenda, oftentimes enslaving those who they <em>liberate</em> in order to take advantage of them. <br />
<br />
In the Bible, God gives liberty for men to do right, while liberation theology is an excuse for men to rebel against God and sin.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
America used to be the land of <em>Liberty</em>. But with the modern day teachings of anti-colonialism, communism, social justice, radicalism, and revolution, we find that American is now the land of <em>Liberation</em>. And as it seeks to "<em>liberate</em>"<em> </em>others it is turning even farther away from God. Progressives are leading the pack in <em>liberation</em>. They don't believe in God, the Bible, or even the founding fathers. They don't look at liberty as a way to serve God of a free conscience willingly serving him. Instead, they believe that their job is to <em>liberate</em> others whom they feel are oppressed. But what if they feel the greatest opressor is GOD? Then they are actually trying to liberate people from the Creator, and by so doing they are turning people against God. They are nothing more than rebels, Luciferians, who like one of their radical founders Saul Alinsky praised. <br />
<br />
<br />
</div>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-67977546062305320872011-04-18T08:19:00.000-07:002011-04-18T08:20:38.290-07:00Pensacola Florida the Start of the Civil War?<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Recently, the news brought out the fact that we are nearing the 150th anniversary of the start of "The War of Northern Agression" (What some call the "Civil War). And, they brought up the fact that I've heard very seldom mentioned, that the Civil War might have started in Pensacola, and not in South Carolina.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Growing up just across the bay from Pensacola, Florida, I feel privileged to be so close to such a historical place. Pensacola (once called Panzacola by the Spaniards) is the oldest city in America, being the first colony of Spain on American soil. </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In fact, I was raised very close to the first Spanish Mission on American Soil over here on what is now known as Garcon Point.</span><span style="font-family: Georgia; mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The Spanish History in this area is amazing, as the Spanish sailed all throughout this area. In fact, just about three miles across the bay from where I live on Bayou Chico I believe it is (maybe it’s Bayou Texar), they discovered a 1600 century Spanish sailing ship. You can see a replica of it today at the T. T. Wentworth museum downtown. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">And, if you were to go downtown, you would see a small fort on a hill which represents the battle fought there between the British and the Spanish. There is a small bust there to a man named Galvez, of whom Escambia Bay was once named. </span><span lang="ES-HN" style="font-family: Georgia; mso-ansi-language: ES-HN;">It was called “La Bahia de Santa Maria de Galvez.” </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">I’m with you. It’s just much easier to say Escambia Bay! </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The rich Spanish heritage of the Pensacola area is everywhere. But after the Americans took over Florida, that heritage quickly faded. But they are still discovering Spanish artifacts today. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><a href="http://uwf.edu/jworth/escambe.htm">http://uwf.edu/jworth/escambe.htm</a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Pensacola is known as “The City of Five Flags,” for the five countries that once ruled this area. They include: Spanish, French, British, American, and Confederate.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">So the Pensacola area in rich in culture and diverse in its heritage.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">This brings us to the Civil War. Not only does Pensacola hold claim to being the first founded colony in the new World, but it also holds claim to being the site of where the Civil War started. Many believe it started in South Carolina and Fort Sumter. But they conveniently omit what really happened down here in Pensacola several months earlier. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/so-where-did-the-civil-war-start-move-over-sc-one-town-says-florida/">http://www.theblaze.com/stories/so-where-did-the-civil-war-start-move-over-sc-one-town-says-florida/</a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">With the 150<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the start of the Civil War, it’s about time we look at what really happened. Hopefully, Pensacola will receive it’s rightful honor and place in history as the site of the start of this dreadful and bloody war.</span>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300104942006720993.post-60078078457667536502011-04-10T06:59:00.000-07:002011-04-10T07:08:17.917-07:00150th ANNIVERSARY OF THE "UN"CIVIL WAR<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Last week was the the 150th anniversary of the start of what some call the "Civil War." (There was nothing <em>civil</em> about it!) I remember being taught the truth about that war in a public school in the South. They rightly gave me the <em>facts</em> about the engagement and not the <em>feelings. </em>Simply put, the war was another war of Independence against a tyrannical government in which <em>state's rights</em> was the determining factor. <em>Slavery</em> had very little to do with the war. However, it would be wrong to say it didn't play a role. It did. The North hated slavery, but the constitution (and even the Bible) allowed it. Northerners didn't seem to care about the Constitution, and because they had a higher population, they passed laws against the South, especially the collection of high tarrifs (ever heard of the Morrill Tarrif? You should really look that up. What an injustice!). The South only wanted to be left alone. Just as the colonies separated from England crying, "<em>No taxation without representation!</em>" So to, the South desired relief from economic slavery to the North which they found in leaving the Union. But the American colonies were praised for their Independence from England, while the South was villified for it's secession from the North. How can this be? So much for being consistent.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many say the South started the war. This is a fallacy. It was Mr. Lincoln who sent warships to South Carolina. This is an act of agression, which justifies self-defense. And, most people won't even look at the fact that the Southern General cordially gave those in Ft. Sumter 30 days to leave. When he learned they had no food left, every morning Southerners took a boat full of food for the Union troops to eat. Just a little thing called, "Southern Hospitality!" But that's conviently forgotten by modern historians who vehemently villify and ridicule the South, making them out to be the evil rebels, while exalting the North as the great emancipator.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The truth is, when you study history (which most people don't do), the greatest injustices were those of the North against the South. Sherman burned, raped, and plundered the South in actions that were not only immoral but against the rules of war. Lincoln did away with the writ of <em>habeus corpus</em> and many other legal rights of the individual, often times locking citizens up indefinetly without trial only upon suspicion with no evidence whatsoever. Soldiers were <em>drafted</em> by the North and forced to fight against their will, which caused riots in the streets in New York. (What you never heard about that? You should really study your history).</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But probably the saddest thing about the "Un" Civil war was the bloody carnage. Hundreds of thousands of people died butcherous deaths from huge led bullets which ripped through their bodies. Those who survived had to have limbs cut off, the modern medical practice of the day to save lives. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">But have you ever stopped to ask, "<em>Why did all this happen?</em>" </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Victors claim it was all because of <em>slavery</em> and they were only protecting a certain group of people, fighting for their freedom. But what about the freedom of others? Is it right to take away one man's freedom to give it to another? It is right to kill your neighbor so you can free his neighbor? </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Even though the Civil War ended in 1865, for a lot of people in the South, it's still not over. They view the war differently than the North. They feel their rights were trampled upon. For the constititution gave them the right to seceed from the union when they so desired. When they did so, they were attacked by an invading force. Their goods were then stolen by invaders and their homes burned and their women ravished. And, if that wasn't bad enough, their good names were tarnished by those who claimed they were <em>rebellious</em>. (Most of the South were moral, erect, God-fearing, Bible Believing Christians). And, after the war, they were subjugated in the most cruel manner as <em>carpet baggers</em> entered their land and kept them under subjection to a government that went against it's own constitiution in order to subjugate its populace.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Was the South right? That's for you to decide. But don't decide based on <em>feeling</em>, rather on the <em>facts.</em> For it's easy to villify a people you know nothing about and label them something because they practice something you feel is wrong. But whether slavery was right or wrong is not the issue. In fact, slavery is still practiced today all throughout the world (it's still around in Muslim communities). Why then isn't their a Civil War to stamp that out? Where's the consistency?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As we look at the fruit of the Civil War, we see that it got rid of slavery, and it eventually unified the country once more. But at what cost? There is still no <em>writ of habeus corpus</em>. If fact, most people don't even know what this is! It's only a fundamental right of a freely governed society in which citizens are viewed as <em>innocent</em> until proven <em>guilty</em> in a court of law! Sadly, in our day and age, it's the exact opposite. You are <em>guilty</em> until you can prove yourself <em>innocent</em> in a court of law.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We have only Lincoln and the corrupt politicians of the North to thank for our loss of freedoms in America. In fact, if you really want to place blame on someone, then why not blame the North for everything, as it was NORTHERN and BRITISH ships that brought slaves to America in the first place and sold them to the South! How are they held innocent for this, but the South villified for owning slaves?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Civil War was a horrible, bloody event. One that we would do well to forget. But it's hard to let it go. Three groups still remember that war, and they all remember it differently. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Northerners love to look at themselves as the great emancipators. Blacks still look back at their years of slavery, and demand recompense for it, even though they've been freed. And Southerners look at themselves as the victims who were attacked by an invading force which stripped them of their freedoms.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Which was right? Political Scholars state that Constitutionally it was the South. Moral Historians agree it was the North, which did man a favor in abolishing slavery. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">In short, there is still much debate over the issue, and much mistrust and anger still found in the hearts of men. Northerners still look at Southerners as dumb hicks and rednecks who should never have owned blacks. Southerners still view Northerners as city slickers who don't have a clue and shouldn't stick their noses into other people's business. And many blacks still look at whites as the evil Master bent only upon subdueing them and keeping down.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In short, one has to wonder if the Civil War really is over. For anger still lingers in the hearts of men. Racial, political, and moral tension abound now probably more than ever, dividing America rather than healing it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So happy 150th anniversary America! You started a war years ago that might have led to the union of the nation of states, but it hasn't healed the hearts of men. And it is seldom forgotten by many.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I only pray that there are no more Civil Wars, as it would destroy our country even more, as the hatred in men's hearts would lead to unfathomable travesties, and unwanted destruction. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">As we commemorate 150 years ago the beginning of this war, and we ponder what caused it, and what the fruit of it is today, let's also make it a point to forgive one another. I'm a Southerner. I was born in the South. I forgive the North. Are you a Northerner? Can you forgive me? <br />
I'm also white. I never owned slaves. If you are black, can you forgive my ancestors that might of owned slaves and not hold it against me?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Bible says, "<em>A house divided against itself cannot stand</em>." If America continues to be divided, it will eventually fall. It's time it unites, but not on a false premise and not under a corrupt system of government. What America needs is FREEDOM FOR ALL, and JUSTICE TO EVERY CITIZEN ALIKE. Only this will erase the memory of the horrible and bloody Civil War.</div>R.R. Breakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970196847450473044noreply@blogger.com0