The Spiritual War between North and South

Many a historian has written a book about the actual physical battles 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 spiritual battle which lead to that confrontation.  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.

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, "How could such a travesty ensue when both sides read the same Bible?"  (I paraphrase, so this is not a direct quote).  The answer is that they did not read it the same way.  The South took a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, while the North "spiritualized" the Bible, and believed it was metaphorical, not literal.  This eventually lead to division not only in the country, but first in the Churches within the nation itself.

The North had a majority of Churches which were either Universalist, Unitarian, or Catholic.  The Southern majority of Churches were either Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian.

To understand the views of the Northerners vs. the Southerners, one must understand the teachings of these various sects.  For it was quite often the Ministers on both sides which preached either against or in favor of slavery, state's rights, and secession.

Preachers on either side were fervent in their preaching, and passionate about what they believed.  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? 
The answer is easy to find by looking at their doctrine and their fruit. Unitarians believed that Jesus was not God.  (Clearly an anti-biblical teaching).  They further believed that man was inherently good and not evil, and thus had no reason for a Saviour.  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.  Catholics also taught this doctrine of "working one's way to heaven."  Finally, Universalists believed in the unifying nature of their cause, and desired others to join their ranks for the purpose of championing a cause in which people could rally together.  They believed in preaching "issues" to support, rather than preaching doctrine from the Bible.

These three main Northern religions worked together in harmony to form radical groups of anti-slavery minions who eventually called themselves "Abolitionists."  However, they not only didn't believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, they further refused to accept and follow his teachings.  They were, therefore, not truly Christians, accepting only the term Christian while denying the person who started Christianity.   

The focus, then, of these radical religionists was on building an earthly kingdom, rather than focusing on the eternal destiny of man's soul.  And because of this, many of them turned towards politics, rather than the preaching of the Gospel.  And many of them turned towards physical means to right what they viewed as a great wrong in the eyes of God--Slavery!

Yet, their methods proved they were not Christians.  One of their biggest supporters, John Brown, was a "Minister."  (I use the term lightly, as a true minister would never be a murderer as he was).  Yet he used physical force and even death to forward his kingdom, something Jesus would never condone!  The well-known saying eloquently portrays such religious zealots, when it states: "Kingdom builders are bloody killers!"

Contrast this with the Southern people and their religious and doctrinal views, many of which were either Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian.   Although these denominations differ greatly, they all had one thing in common.  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.  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.  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.  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.

Southern Ministers viewed slavery as not only acceptable, but Biblical.  And they had verses to prove it.  Some would run to Leviticus 25:44-46, which states:

 

44 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.  45  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.  46 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.

 

But these verses spoke to Israel, and did not apply to them.  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.  From 1 Timothy 6:1-5 we read:

 

1 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.  2  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.  3 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; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

  

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."  Thus, to a Southerner, a war against slavery was a war against God himself and what he taught in the scriptures.

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.  (Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 4:1 are other examples of Biblical passages addressed to slaves and their masters).

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.  But as Christian gentlemen the majority of Southerners never practiced such horrible atrocities.  Many even went to Church with their slaves and treated them with honor and respect.  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.  And they were often dealt with by the law and/or Christian Ministers who preached against such conduct. 

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. 

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.  And he continued to preach hate toward the Southern people, stereotyping them, and lumping them all into the same basket as inhumane mongrels who abused their fellow human beings.

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.  But the North would not let up.  Believing they were righteous and the South was evil, Northern politicians began to justify their hatred and disdain against the South.  This eventually lead to their unanimous belief that God himself had called them to punish the South for what they viewed as wrong doing.  And far before an army was called physically for that intended purpose, the Northern Politicians sought to debilitate the South economically.  For this end they instituted the Morrill Tariff, which was nothing more than a TAX upon the South of up to 47% of their revenue. 

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.  That is what gave birth to the United States.  It was all because of a nationwide contempt towards "Taxation without Representation." 

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.  And that's exactly what he tried to do when he sent Federal ships to Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor.  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?  You never heard this story?  Could it be because the radical abolitionists rewrote history?)

We all know what happened.  War ensued.  But what the war was about depends upon what you know, (or better stated what you've been taught) about history.  If you believe the modern teaching, then you believe the war was started by the South when they fired upon Ft. Sumter.  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.

Some call it to this very day by the deceptive term of the "Civil War."  But it was anything but civil.  In fact, it was atrocious!  It was not about slavery, even though that played a key in justifying the war in Northern propaganda.  Nay, it was rather about Southerners being left alone and being free from Northern taxation, Northern religious hatred, and Federal occupation.  In short, the best way to label that war would be to call it what it really was -- A War of Northern Aggression.

But way before it was a physical war, it was a spiritual battle.  The North began their crusade 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.  

Oh how Satan must have savoured the widespread hatred he instilled in Northern hearts and gloried in the savage bloodshed 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.  And they fought without malice, rather only doing what they felt was their duty in the Northern Army).  

But the joke was on the Devil, for during the Civil War something happened, that is very seldom mentioned to this very day.  During the physical skirmish and amidst the ghastly slaughter and bloodshed, God upon his throne in heaven smiled as a spiritual fight took place in the hearts of men.  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.  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.  And during that conflict the Gospel of Jesus Christ was preached everywhere by godly ministers, Honorable Generals, lowly privates, and even starving slaves.  Spiritual campaigns and revivals broke out in towns, cities, villages, and even within the armies themselves on both sides.  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.  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.  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.

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. 

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."

Yes, even though the battle was won by the North politically.   And they are remembered as the physical Victors, the truth is a spiritual 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.

Only heaven will reveal how many people came to Jesus during that dreadful and appalling awful conflict.  But the war did not end there.  After the forced re-union 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.   They preached the Gospel message in the army of the Lord using the sword of the scripture with as much courage and determination as they fought with a rifle in their respective national armies.  They were true soldiers of the cross! 

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. 

Today seldom is heard of a "universalist" or a "unitarian."  But the entire country has heard of the words: Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian.   These denominations have endured to this very day, while the hateful Northern religions have proven themselves spiritually fruitless.  (*Note:  Many of these denominations today are now in complete apostasy.  Truly we are in the last days as the Bible prophesied.  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).   

Let us therefore always remember the cost of War.  Many died, and sadly many went to Hell because they were unsaved.  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.  Those saved went to a much better place, and are there today.  Many of their descendents preached to others of the same hope they had in Jesus.  And the Gospel spread to every corner of the nation. 

Many today remember only the PHYSICAL War of 1861-1865.  I hope this small article will help to illustrate the SPIRITUAL battle that took place at the same time.  It was not to build a kingdom on earth, rather to fill a kingdom in heaven with the souls of men.   

The Truth About the First American Slave

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."

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. (Even though it happened over 150 years ago!) 

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. 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. 

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. 

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.  (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!)

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 owe 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?

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: "Father of U.S. slavery was a black man," 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 slave for life!
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!   

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!

To read more about this article and to learn for yourself the truth about the first American slave, go to:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/

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 Sinners.  But both are also Citizens.  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! 

Feel free to comment below...

Guilty until Proven Innocent

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 NOT about Slavery and freeing blacks.  It was about STATES RIGHTS and the right for states to govern themselves 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. 

It was a sad story, but was true.  That's why my teachers and the textbooks taught it to me, it was historically acurate.

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 INNOCENT, until PROVEN guilty. 

This meant that we as a society thought the BEST of people, not the worst.  And we always held them 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 citizens, 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 viewed as innocent, until through judical process he was proven (beyond any shadow of a doubt) to be guilty.  That is, if someone accused someone else of a crime, then he DARN WELL had to have PROOF of it, otherwise he was in contempt and was a perjurer who proved himself to be guilty of lying. 

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 prove 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.

Such a law-abiding society makes people want to do right, rather than evil, for there is reward for righteousness and recompense for wickedness.

The early U.S. court system was set up in such a way that it not only protected the righteous, but it also protected the accused, 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 NOT arrested and then 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!

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 Prove his innocence, as much as it is to Prove him guilty.  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.

What a horrid system of law!  And what's worse is its affect on society.  Under the innocent until proven guilty system, people were viewed as basically good and they were well-respected.  But under the guilty until proven innocent 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 accused is a person abused by the police, the courts, society, their own fellow prisoners, and their fellow citizens.

What has become of our nation?  Because the government views its citizens through the eyes of "guilty until proven innocent" 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!

Gun control is a perfect example.  Crazy people commit gun crimes, and innocent people die.  But rather than prosecute them for their 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 GUILTY 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?

Today, because government wants to take away all guns, many citizens suspiciously view the government through the misguided viewpoint of guilty until proven innocent.  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.

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. 

So which system is the best?   Should we view others as "innocent until proven guilty" or should we view people as "guilty until proven innocent."  And what does history say about it?

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.

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.

Hitler killed 6 million Jews that he deemed guilty 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? 

I could go on and on, but I believe I've made my point.  My old teachers taught me right. To view others as "innocent" until they are proven "guilty" in a court of law is the definition of true freedom. While viewing certain people as GUILTY until proven INNOCENT is absolute TYRRANNY!  Why? Because labeling someone as guilty 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.

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 guilty until proven innocent.  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.  

What exactly is a Terrorist?

We've heard a lot about "Terrorism" and "Terrorists" over the last ten to fifteen years.  Almost nightly on the news you hear the word, but what exactly does it mean? 

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! 

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." 

Thus, the word Terrorist 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?

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 terrorize certain people, while to others it's a bad thing.  The classic line in one of the Rambo movies illustrates it nicely: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!"

A simple definition of a Terrorist is: "Someone who FIGHTS for something, usually a specific cause or ideal that is very dear to their heart."  And whether or not the person is truly a "Terrorist" depends upon how he is viewed by society.

A good example of "terrorism" would be that of Nazi Germany. Most of the world viewed the Nazis as Terrorist Thugs, 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?

Clearly the Jews were not 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 the bad guys. But what if they had won? What if they had taken over the entire world? Then would not the official position be that the true terrorists 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?  

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 terror in the hearts of others, and one in which a person is viewed as JUST for fighting oppression.  

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 terror like the Boston Tea Party.  To the King, they were terrorists who needed to be brought to justice, but to the colonists, he (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: "The Founding Fathers were the TERRORISTS of their day.")

So who was right?  Who was the real terrorist?  Who was evil and who was just?

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 terrorists were the Southerners who rebelled 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?

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 terrorist 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).

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.   

The real question to ask is: "Is it right to ever use terror?"  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.   

It is interesting, however, as I found in my study of the word, that today the words terrorism and terrorist are often used by governments in a political sense.  And they are often used to curb free speech and intimidate people into submission.

One website defines TERRORISM as:

 

"the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal."

 

TO SEE THIS DEFINITION YOURSELF GO TO:  http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/terrorism 

Another defines it as:

 

"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..."

 

TO SEE THIS DEFINITION YOURSELF GO TO:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Here, the term is used in such a way of one's one government using terror against it's own citizens to scare them into submission to it's oppressive policies. 

Thus, even though the true terrorist is the political regime, the people who won't go along with their oppression are labelled terrorists in order to capture them and silence their opposition.  Such an oppressive regime is not only sad, but very immoral and ungodly. 

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 terrorize non-believers.

Terror 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. 

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 Terrorist doesn't neccesarily mean they are.  It's quite possible they have been labelled by the real Terrorist group.  And, it's possible that they just might be a true freedom fighter.  This is why it's important to practice discernment and look at the person, group, religion, or government, that has been labeled terrorist.  What are they preaching, teaching, pushing.  What are their ideals, dogmas, policies? 

If they are trying to take away one's liberties and oppress them them, they are most likely Tyrants and therefore Terrorists.  If they are fighting for liberty, then they are most likely Patriots.

The definition of terms are so important.

 

 

 

Forced Union

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.

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. 

They were free physically, 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 pursuit of happiness).  He was free economically, and if he worked hard, he could keep the fruit of his labours and enjoy them. He was free religiously, 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 spiritually 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!

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?

The answer is because of "FORCED UNION." 

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 union of the country.  President Andrew Jackson was a very big supporter of the union of the states. He wanted Union at all costs.  But to stay united meant that someone would have to compromise, something that many did not want to do.

And if you know your American History, you know that eventually the divide was so great, that the South seceeded from the Union, 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 seceeded from the Union. 

What happened?  You know the story.   The North started the War of Northern Agression, also known as the Civil War.  (Or the "Un-Civil War," depending upon how you look at it).

The North then practiced FORCED UNION, as they went to war and killed people in order to force them to be reunited with them. 

Lincoln, that old despot, chose to send a fleet of warships to ATTACK the South.  Knowing this, the South gave Union 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?)

Now you can argue all you want about slavery and the South and how that led to the Civil War, but the truth is the NORTH wanted to enslave 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 mandates that you must 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 DIDN'T EVEN READ IT!!!  And a law which over 60% of the American public didn't even want!)

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 chose for themselves.  They originally chose to be a part of the Union.  But when they chose to leave, they were attacked, and forced into submission.  

The second period is what happened after that until this very day, in which the U.S. goverment has a history of forcing 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 forced 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.

Thus, we find that the United States of America at it's founding had a necesssary union which voluntarily came together for the purpose of granting men FREEDOM.  But when corruption entered into the picture, that Union become nothing more than an oppressive regime that forced men into compliance with that corruption and enslaved them to a political system that took away men's liberties.

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 CHOOSE if they want to join a union 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 FORCED UNION, and they are actively hostile towards those who don't!  (Watch out violence just might ensue.  It's not those who want choice that are the violent ones.  It's those who want to force you do so something that are violent!  History plainly teaches us this!)

Why is it that Labor Unions want to force workers to join them?  If they are truly Americans, who believe in the Constitution, wouldn't they want people to freely chose for themselves?   

The facts are that Labour unions in America have become so strong that they can and do FORCE people to join their UNION whether they want to or not.  And, not only that, they take a large chunk of money from their union employees (a tax, if you will) that belong to their union.  (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!)

But shouldn't a person have the right to choose for him or herself if they want to belong to a certain organization? 

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 Labor Unions, 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!)

Labor Unions are guilty of trying to force 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 Unions 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 "FORCE" compliance to their wishes.) 

I've personally known men that work hard and belonged to Unions at their job.  They all told me the same thing, usually it was something like this: "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!"

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. 

In the political world, that would pretty much correspond to what we call "entitlements."  The Federal Government passes laws to make their union 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 union 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 Union(s) themselves.  And unless they comply, they will have nothing.

This is nothing short of FORCED UNION.  Or, doing what they powerful say, or else!

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 "true church" and outside of their church there is no salvation.  Is this not "FORCED UNION?" It forces a person to  join them and stay with them out of FEAR, rather than out of a FREE conscience.

 

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! 

Jesus never forced anyone to do anything.  He gave all men freewill.  This means man has a choice 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 forced to do anything. 

Be careful of those who want to force you to do something without allowing you the opportunity to decide for yourself.  True freedom FORCES no one!  Union is only truly achieved by FREELY chosing to UNITE, not being forced to do so. 

What this election taught us.

 

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. 

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, "Every nation...divided against itself shall not stand." (Matthew 12:24) 

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 divided 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.

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, Red are the Republicans and Blue are the Democrats.  Red is the color of blood, and blue is the color of heaven.  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 blood 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 heaven.  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. 

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.

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.

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!

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. 

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?

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. 

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, "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"

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 place where he could go to be alone and comune with God!

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 LAND owners.  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. 

You see, in an agrarian society, people are taught to be self-sufficent and provide for themselves.   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 hand outs.  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 giving rather only what they can get 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 Southern Hospitality, while the North is known for being rude!  It all makes sense!)

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 promise 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! 

And, that's how Obama won this election.  He promised to give people stuff.  The only problem is that in order to give someone something, you have to take 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 taking from one group to give it to another.  In other words, as the President calls it, "Re-distribution of wealth."  Or as it's called politically: "Communism" or "Socialism."

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. 

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 promises and handouts turn into programs of rationing, in which people get less and less, and eventually starve to death like they did in Russia, Vietnam, Korea, etc.

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.

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!

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?

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. 

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.   

We have a divided political view in this country.  But soon, we will have a divided class system.  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.

Historically, we see one of two things happening: either there is war, or there is holocaust.  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.

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.

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 carnal, rather than spiritual. 

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 government rather than God.

All we can do is pray and prepare.  Pray for our country! 

Those Who Liberal Leftists Always Desire to Attack

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 endoctrinate 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. 

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.

For example, there are those in our country who call themselves "Conservatives."  What do they want?  They desire to conserve things.  That is, they want to hold on to what they have rather than give it to a corrupt government so it can redistribute it to others. 
These Conservatives are often referred to as "The Right."  And isn't "right" the same as "correct?"  When something's right it's true because it's correct.   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 Conservatives and those on the right.  Why is this?)

So who is the other group who opposses "The Right?"  They are often referred to as the "Left."  Who are the left?  Well, left is the opposite of right, and if right also means correct, then that must mean the left must be wrong!  (I mean, that just makes sense, doesn't it?)

And when we think of the political left 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. 
So who are the leftists in America?  Usually they are called the "Liberals." And most often they are those in power who are pro-Socialist and pro-Communist.  They are the exact opposite of the Conservatives.  And being liberal 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 spendthrifts who love to give liberally to their constituents, hence the label "Liberals."  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).

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 good guys, if you will, are the Conservatives who are on the Right (or in the right, however you want to say it), and the bad guys are the liberal Leftists 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.

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 right verses left (or right vs wrong, however you want to say it), rather it's a battle of good vs evil.   More clearly explained, it's a battle of those on the Left wanting to gain more power while constantly denegrating those on the right, ridiculing them, and often demonizing them.  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 wrong? That's the only thing I can figure.  For they often are the ones using evil tactics on others!)

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 truth the Left simply ATTACKS others.  And it does so mercilessly.  Rather than defend their position, they relish the opportunity only to attack 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 who and what they are and on to others and who they proclaim them to bo. 

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 organize his community.  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 active in the political process.  But who and how and why?

If you study the people he is organizing, you find that he was active in building a leftist army using communistic ideals to do so, with the intention of using their influence to intimidate others into submission to his Leftist ideals.  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.) 
It's all smoke and mirrors used by the left 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).

The left has always believed that they are right and everyone else is wrong.  They feel that they are smart and everyone else is too dumb to know what's good for them, and that's why they are needed as the Saviours of humanity to take charge and do what's best for all. 

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.   

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.

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 accusations against a person!  A person could be completely innocent of any wrong, but most people will always remember that person as so and so that was accused of such and such.  It doesn't matter if they did it or not.  They are the person who was accused of doing such.  The Left knows this and uses this smear campaign without mercy, for it is their most effective weapon.

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 always attack, because they are a threat to their positions.  They are as follows. 

The Righteous

The Left hates those who are right.  I guess that's why they despise "The Right" and label them "Right-wing 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?

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 righteous, for the only alternative would be to admit they are wrong.

The Redeemed

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.

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 wrong in what they believe and practice, and rather than repent and get right with God, they would rather rage against those who claim to know and love God?
Or could it be even more sinister then that?  Could they be lead of Satan himself?  (A strong possibility, as many leftists follow a book by Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his work to LUCIFER!!!)

Could it be the reason the left is against the right is because it is a spiritual battle of good verses evil?

The Rich

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 help 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?

The Radio Talk Show Hosts

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 they 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 opinions, or active only in ATTACKING others.  (Which again, is the standard Operating Procedure of the Left).

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 intolerant people in the world. 
Why are they so intolerant while claiming to be more tolerant than others? 

Those with a Real Track Record

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. 
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.
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.
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!!!)

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!)

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???

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. 

Yet, Liberals never 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 attack Romney and try to say that he fired 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 any jobs and has done nothing good and got our country deeper in debt, or a guy like Romney who's run a successful business?"

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!!!

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?

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 help 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.
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.
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. 
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. 
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! 

Any comments???  Please provide them below!