This is the most difficult thing I believe I have ever posted. Let me preface it with this scripture.
2 Chronicles 18:6-7
6 But Jehoshaphat asked, "Is there not a prophet of the Lord here whom we can inquire of?"
7 The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, "There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the Lord, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah."
Ahab and Jehoshaphat wanted to hear from Yahweh. I believe that Jehoshaphat truly wanted to hear from Yahweh on some level. However as I read the scripture Ahab only wanted Yahweh to bless the plans he had already made. I am afraid that too many Christians have developed this same attitude. We say we want to hear from Yeshua, yet when we do, we become annoyed and angry with what we have heard. Paul warned Timothy about this very idea in 2 Timothy 4:4,3.
One week ago the Holy Spirit gave me a dream of warning to give to all that would hear it. I awoke in the early morning hours very disturbed by the dream I had. I will only say this about the dream. The dream was very disturbing and very unusual. The Holy Spirit told me I should only share the dream itself with a certain people. However I was told to share the meaning of the dream with anyone that would listen. I was also instructed to share the meaning of the dream where I could. I leave it to you the reader to discern if my dream is from the Spirit of Yahweh.
To the Church that lies within the USA, listen to what the Spirit of Yahweh is saying to His people.
I have sent my Spirit to you to teach and comfort you. I have provided for you that you may enjoy wealth and abundance. I have prospered you, so that you may be an example to all the nations of my grace.
Instead you have become complacent with my gospel. Instead of protecting and promoting me, you have endangered and damaged My Name. As I increase My mercy and grace, you increase the damage you have done to My truth. You have worked not to promote My Gospel but to prosper yourself at My expense. Each attempt you have made to better the Gospel has only brought destruction and insult to My Bride . Your programs and rituals will never take the place of My Spirit. Your offense has been so great if I had not interfered you would wholly have destroyed the Gospel Message and My Bride.
Now hear me of what is to come. Correct your behavior or suffer. If you do not repent and return to my plans I will bring destruction to this nation. I will tolerate it no more. Stop attempting to make me in your Image. End your sin or know this. The nation I have easily brought to power will be even easier to destroy. Know Destruction looms…Heed my warning and repent now otherwise I will destroy this nation, just as I have destroyed those before you.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
It's not about fair, it is about justice!
Having just concluded a four week study on Biblical Principles of Giving, I have a couple of principles that I would like to bring to the reader’s attention. For some these will be astonishing. These same principles will anger some. Regardless of how you feel about this, understand your reactions to them are an indictment on you the reader. I have reconciled myself with these Biblical principles.
The fist principle is this. It is unjust to require more of a rich person and less of a poor person.
Ex 30:15 The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the Lord to atone for your lives.
Often in our society, there is an expectation that if someone is wealthier they should be responsible for a greater burden. The idea of tier responsibility is not born out in scripture. As the scripture plainly says here, both have the same level of responsibility. This expectation that some should bare more responsibility and some should bare less responsibility creates several problems within the Church and society as whole. I will list several problems that tiered responsibility births for the Church and for society.
The most notable problem that tiered responsibility creates is corruption. It becomes a corrupting force by two separate means. As I will explain, the only way to combat these corrupting forces is by having a Biblical model that requires everyone to have the same level of responsibility.
The first corrupting force is financial. When the rich are providing the funds needed to conduct a ministry or a societal structure, it is only natural that they will receive greater influence and access to leadership. While a person of authority may claim he/she is not influenced by money, it becomes impossible to believe this when a person of authority is so dependent on those funds for their livelihood. Regardless of how sincere a person’s intent, they can be persuaded when the bulk of their funds come from a minority of sources.
The second corrupting force is majority rule or mob rule. Majority rule is the most often misunderstood concept within our society. Often people mistake governance by natural law with majority rule. As Ben Franklin said, “Majority Rule is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.” With a tiered responsibility system, those required to contribute less often outnumber those required to give more. Simply put, the poor eventually outnumber the rich. This creates an environment where more people by sheer numbers seemingly have a greater influence over those in authority. What is created is a mob pushing leaders.
It is plain to see how a just and equal distribution of responsibility corrects both of these corrupting forces.
Jealously and envy are also problems with a tiered level of responsibility. In order for a tiered system to work, someone must be charged with the task of inspecting what a person owns and how that person’s tier is assigned. Then someone must be assigned with the task of ensuring that the previous persons are indeed assigning people to the correct tiers. Additionally someone must determine what the levels of the tiers are. Now someone must provide the previous group the information to determine the tiers. As you can see the numbers of people required to create a tiered system is limitless. Here is what really happens though. Everyone knows what everyone else has. No one should have to make their wealth a matter of public record. Privacy is a solid Biblical principle that should never be voided by a tradition of man. When we make public financial information, it permits others to make unnecessary judgments concerning the person. Please don’t misunderstand me there are times when judgments must be made however this is not one of those times. The truth is why do you care how much your neighbor’s wealth is? The only reason to be concerned with this is, if you are jealous of what he has.
The next principle this series has illustrated to me is one of the heart. While we discussed many types of offerings, one thing remains consistent. Giving is a matter of the heart.
2 Cor 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
This scripture is dealing specifically with a free will offering being collected by Paul. However we can learn from the principle he is presenting here. The same principle is found with the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
Acts 5:4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
You see the principle is very clear, giving regardless of the reason, of how just or benevolent, is a matter of the heart. You cannot force someone to be generous. It must come from their decisions. When you simply take someone’s wealth whether it is by manipulation of their conscience, laws, or at the end of the gun, it is theft. Generosity cannot be mandated. No more than you can force someone to change their heart.
In closing, I say this. Giving, tithing, taxes, etc is a physical means to establish responsibility. To fail to share that responsibility equally and justly is immoral. To allow one group to be less responsible than another, is to demean their value. To place a greater burden on one group is to value that group more. We all contain the same intrinsic value as the creation of Yahweh. The concept that someone can force generosity is an insult to Yahweh. Any belief that attempts to overrule Yahweh’s decree is Satanic at its conception and arrogant. Denying the supremacy of Yahweh’s power is nothing more than an attempt to unseat Him from His Throne. We should never be so arrogant and rebellious to believe that we should do what Yeshua has abstained from.
The fist principle is this. It is unjust to require more of a rich person and less of a poor person.
Ex 30:15 The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the Lord to atone for your lives.
Often in our society, there is an expectation that if someone is wealthier they should be responsible for a greater burden. The idea of tier responsibility is not born out in scripture. As the scripture plainly says here, both have the same level of responsibility. This expectation that some should bare more responsibility and some should bare less responsibility creates several problems within the Church and society as whole. I will list several problems that tiered responsibility births for the Church and for society.
The most notable problem that tiered responsibility creates is corruption. It becomes a corrupting force by two separate means. As I will explain, the only way to combat these corrupting forces is by having a Biblical model that requires everyone to have the same level of responsibility.
The first corrupting force is financial. When the rich are providing the funds needed to conduct a ministry or a societal structure, it is only natural that they will receive greater influence and access to leadership. While a person of authority may claim he/she is not influenced by money, it becomes impossible to believe this when a person of authority is so dependent on those funds for their livelihood. Regardless of how sincere a person’s intent, they can be persuaded when the bulk of their funds come from a minority of sources.
The second corrupting force is majority rule or mob rule. Majority rule is the most often misunderstood concept within our society. Often people mistake governance by natural law with majority rule. As Ben Franklin said, “Majority Rule is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.” With a tiered responsibility system, those required to contribute less often outnumber those required to give more. Simply put, the poor eventually outnumber the rich. This creates an environment where more people by sheer numbers seemingly have a greater influence over those in authority. What is created is a mob pushing leaders.
It is plain to see how a just and equal distribution of responsibility corrects both of these corrupting forces.
Jealously and envy are also problems with a tiered level of responsibility. In order for a tiered system to work, someone must be charged with the task of inspecting what a person owns and how that person’s tier is assigned. Then someone must be assigned with the task of ensuring that the previous persons are indeed assigning people to the correct tiers. Additionally someone must determine what the levels of the tiers are. Now someone must provide the previous group the information to determine the tiers. As you can see the numbers of people required to create a tiered system is limitless. Here is what really happens though. Everyone knows what everyone else has. No one should have to make their wealth a matter of public record. Privacy is a solid Biblical principle that should never be voided by a tradition of man. When we make public financial information, it permits others to make unnecessary judgments concerning the person. Please don’t misunderstand me there are times when judgments must be made however this is not one of those times. The truth is why do you care how much your neighbor’s wealth is? The only reason to be concerned with this is, if you are jealous of what he has.
The next principle this series has illustrated to me is one of the heart. While we discussed many types of offerings, one thing remains consistent. Giving is a matter of the heart.
2 Cor 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
This scripture is dealing specifically with a free will offering being collected by Paul. However we can learn from the principle he is presenting here. The same principle is found with the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
Acts 5:4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
You see the principle is very clear, giving regardless of the reason, of how just or benevolent, is a matter of the heart. You cannot force someone to be generous. It must come from their decisions. When you simply take someone’s wealth whether it is by manipulation of their conscience, laws, or at the end of the gun, it is theft. Generosity cannot be mandated. No more than you can force someone to change their heart.
In closing, I say this. Giving, tithing, taxes, etc is a physical means to establish responsibility. To fail to share that responsibility equally and justly is immoral. To allow one group to be less responsible than another, is to demean their value. To place a greater burden on one group is to value that group more. We all contain the same intrinsic value as the creation of Yahweh. The concept that someone can force generosity is an insult to Yahweh. Any belief that attempts to overrule Yahweh’s decree is Satanic at its conception and arrogant. Denying the supremacy of Yahweh’s power is nothing more than an attempt to unseat Him from His Throne. We should never be so arrogant and rebellious to believe that we should do what Yeshua has abstained from.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Bleeding Turnips
When I was a child my Grandma used to say to me, “You can’t get blood from a turnip.” It was not until I was an adult with kids that I really understood what she was talking about. What my Grandma forgot to mention was unless you are the Federal government you can't get blood from a turnip.
Recently, I stopped in a state rest area while traveling. I had my son with me. As we walked across the parking lot, a lady approached us. The lady was apparently upset and on the verge of tears. She began to share with the two of us her tragic plight. She apparently was on her way to see her dying daughter. She explained in great detail how she and her husband were trapped at the rest area with no gas or food. It was a moving story, honestly.
Let me interject something here. The previous Sunday, my children heard me teaching about the importance of benevolence. I had explained how by reaching out to the needy we are truly doing the work of the Messiah. I explained to the group how we should spend less time determining people’s motives and more time just helping, which I firmly believe. I suddenly realized my child was watching me. Was he about to see me practice what I preach? Or, is he about to see me ignore my own teaching?
Now back to our story. The lady told us she was going to Charlotte, but they were traveling towards Atlanta. I saw her husband standing close by smoking a cigarette. They both just gave me an uneasy feeling. You know that feeling you have when you know someone is just lying. However, I decided it did not matter, after all what was a few dollars. For some reason, even though I was confident she was lying to me, I had sympathy for her. So I reached into my pocket to give them some money. The problem is there was no money there. I searched through all my pockets and could not even find a few cents change. “Ma’am, I am sorry, I would to love to help you but I am broke!” I told my son. “Sometimes it does not matter how much you want to help someone, when you are broke, you are broke.”
Folks this is where our Government is. They (we) are broke! I know folks are hurting and out of work. I understand times are tough. Most of you know that I have had it tough myself for the past couple of years. However, we cannot allow our government to continue spending money regardless of how sympathetic or sad the cause. Yes, people are still out of work. Things continue to be hard. Our nation going into more debt will not change things it will only make things worse. Think about it this way. Your family is struggling with money. You are barely paying the important bills. There are some months when you have to make to tough choices and go without a few things. You decide to make things better. In order to improve your situation you go out to the mall and go on a shopping spree. You buy lots of stuff you can use, but no groceries or essentials. You pay no utilities or house mortgages. So please tell me how would this help your financial struggles? Right now this is what the Federal government is doing. We the People need to rise up against our government and tell them to stop spending on anything. Our pockets are empty regardless of how great the cause. STOP SPENDING NOW!
Recently, I stopped in a state rest area while traveling. I had my son with me. As we walked across the parking lot, a lady approached us. The lady was apparently upset and on the verge of tears. She began to share with the two of us her tragic plight. She apparently was on her way to see her dying daughter. She explained in great detail how she and her husband were trapped at the rest area with no gas or food. It was a moving story, honestly.
Let me interject something here. The previous Sunday, my children heard me teaching about the importance of benevolence. I had explained how by reaching out to the needy we are truly doing the work of the Messiah. I explained to the group how we should spend less time determining people’s motives and more time just helping, which I firmly believe. I suddenly realized my child was watching me. Was he about to see me practice what I preach? Or, is he about to see me ignore my own teaching?
Now back to our story. The lady told us she was going to Charlotte, but they were traveling towards Atlanta. I saw her husband standing close by smoking a cigarette. They both just gave me an uneasy feeling. You know that feeling you have when you know someone is just lying. However, I decided it did not matter, after all what was a few dollars. For some reason, even though I was confident she was lying to me, I had sympathy for her. So I reached into my pocket to give them some money. The problem is there was no money there. I searched through all my pockets and could not even find a few cents change. “Ma’am, I am sorry, I would to love to help you but I am broke!” I told my son. “Sometimes it does not matter how much you want to help someone, when you are broke, you are broke.”
Folks this is where our Government is. They (we) are broke! I know folks are hurting and out of work. I understand times are tough. Most of you know that I have had it tough myself for the past couple of years. However, we cannot allow our government to continue spending money regardless of how sympathetic or sad the cause. Yes, people are still out of work. Things continue to be hard. Our nation going into more debt will not change things it will only make things worse. Think about it this way. Your family is struggling with money. You are barely paying the important bills. There are some months when you have to make to tough choices and go without a few things. You decide to make things better. In order to improve your situation you go out to the mall and go on a shopping spree. You buy lots of stuff you can use, but no groceries or essentials. You pay no utilities or house mortgages. So please tell me how would this help your financial struggles? Right now this is what the Federal government is doing. We the People need to rise up against our government and tell them to stop spending on anything. Our pockets are empty regardless of how great the cause. STOP SPENDING NOW!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Throw away your fire extinguishers!
Gun control has never made any sense to me. I don’t understand why anyone is willing to depend on Law Enforcement to protect them. This is not an insult to those in Law Enforcement; it is just a statement of a fact. Law Enforcement cannot walk around with each person 24/7. It’s just a numbers fact. Not only can they not be there, do you really want them to? Think about it, do you really want a police officer hanging out in your home all the time? Owning a firearm is like owning a fire extinguisher. I am not a firefighter because I own a fire extinguisher. If a fire breaks out I want to be able to fight that fire. Who knows maybe I can even put it out without involving the fire department. Even if I call the fire department, it takes them several minutes to respond. So if I have a small campfire that jumps the campfire ring, should I grab a fire extinguisher and put it out before the fire catches the whole woods on fire? Or should I leave it to the professionals and let it get out of control? A firearm is the same principle.
A bad guy breaks into my house. I used my firearm to stop the burglary and call the police. The situation has stopped and no one (except for the bad guy maybe) is hurt. When the police arrives in twelve minutes (if you are lucky its that quick) they arrest the bad guy.
So here is the thing, if you don’t believe in protecting yourself with a firearm, throw away your fire extinguisher, and first aid kit, all your tools. Leave all those jobs for the professionals!
A bad guy breaks into my house. I used my firearm to stop the burglary and call the police. The situation has stopped and no one (except for the bad guy maybe) is hurt. When the police arrives in twelve minutes (if you are lucky its that quick) they arrest the bad guy.
So here is the thing, if you don’t believe in protecting yourself with a firearm, throw away your fire extinguisher, and first aid kit, all your tools. Leave all those jobs for the professionals!
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Will Barack Obama and Rev. Rick Warren Violate the First Amendment?
I read an article today about President-elect Obama’s choice, Rev. Rick Warren, for the inaugural prayer. There has been a small but vocal opposition to his choice. Besides the issues Rev. Warren has stood for, the emphasis is on what he may say. The AP writer showed concern that lawsuits would be filed for invoking the name of Jesus or Christ in the prayer. Does invoking the name of Jesus violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, or is it protected by it?
A couple of years ago I was taking a Critical Thinking class in college. The instructor gave us a list of topics to choose from for our projects. I decided to be bold and write about ‘One Nation under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. I soon found out that not only was I the only one who argued that it was constitutional, but I also had a lot of fun defending it. I often wonder what our founding fathers would say if they faced the same arguments today.
During the Critical Thinking class, I learned how hostile individuals are when it comes to religion. The first thing from their mouths were the words, “that is unconstitutional”. My classmates would argue that “Under God” was an establishment of religion. Michael Newdow sued to have “Under God” taken out of the pledge for that very reason. My question to them was, “How did it establish a national religion?” They never gave me a good answer. Their answers were based on feelings.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers #84, made the argument that there was no need for a bill of rights because they were stipulations between kings and their subject, and there were examples of rights already given in the articles of the constitution. He said, “It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification (Magna Charta, Petition of Rights, and Declaration of Rights), they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.” In other words, free men already possessed the rights granted by the Bill of Rights.
Let’s see what The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The section of this amendment that has had the greatest controversy is “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”. The congress, under the Articles of Confederation, had been working on the constitution with fresh memories of the Church of England. The king or queen was the head of the church. Whether they were Catholic or Protestant dictated what religion their subjects belonged to. The intent was not to take church out of the state, but to keep the state form heading the church.
The bill was a direct order to the congress that had the power to write laws. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines established as “to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement”. In other words, congress cannot create and control a permanent national religion. The Head of the Church of England required the English people to attend and pay tithes to the church. They were persecuted if they practiced any other religion.
The second part stated: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof”. Congress is prohibited from stopping anyone from exercising their religion. With this in mind, how does a prayer, or any INDIVIDUAL religious action, violate the First Amendment of the Constitution? It does not. The phrase “Separation of Church and State”, as it is used today, is in direct violation to the First Amendment. The correct phrasing should be, “The Protection of the Church from the State.” If there was a “Wall of Separation” between the church and the state, than it would have been written into the bill.
I was disappointed when my Critical Thinking class was over, but the lessons I learned were valuable. On January 20th an invocation will be delivered. Our soon to be president, Barak Obama, has enacted his right to choose Rev. Warren to pray during his inauguration. I hope, for our sakes, that the First Amendment will be used to protect our rights and not trample them. Do not look at the First Amendment as a control on the church. But, look at it as stipulations between congress and the people. The Declaration of Independence was written on behalf of the people to the King of England. In the same way, the Bill of Rights was written on behalf of the people to the Congress of the United States of America.
A couple of years ago I was taking a Critical Thinking class in college. The instructor gave us a list of topics to choose from for our projects. I decided to be bold and write about ‘One Nation under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. I soon found out that not only was I the only one who argued that it was constitutional, but I also had a lot of fun defending it. I often wonder what our founding fathers would say if they faced the same arguments today.
During the Critical Thinking class, I learned how hostile individuals are when it comes to religion. The first thing from their mouths were the words, “that is unconstitutional”. My classmates would argue that “Under God” was an establishment of religion. Michael Newdow sued to have “Under God” taken out of the pledge for that very reason. My question to them was, “How did it establish a national religion?” They never gave me a good answer. Their answers were based on feelings.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers #84, made the argument that there was no need for a bill of rights because they were stipulations between kings and their subject, and there were examples of rights already given in the articles of the constitution. He said, “It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification (Magna Charta, Petition of Rights, and Declaration of Rights), they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.” In other words, free men already possessed the rights granted by the Bill of Rights.
Let’s see what The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The section of this amendment that has had the greatest controversy is “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”. The congress, under the Articles of Confederation, had been working on the constitution with fresh memories of the Church of England. The king or queen was the head of the church. Whether they were Catholic or Protestant dictated what religion their subjects belonged to. The intent was not to take church out of the state, but to keep the state form heading the church.
The bill was a direct order to the congress that had the power to write laws. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines established as “to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement”. In other words, congress cannot create and control a permanent national religion. The Head of the Church of England required the English people to attend and pay tithes to the church. They were persecuted if they practiced any other religion.
The second part stated: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof”. Congress is prohibited from stopping anyone from exercising their religion. With this in mind, how does a prayer, or any INDIVIDUAL religious action, violate the First Amendment of the Constitution? It does not. The phrase “Separation of Church and State”, as it is used today, is in direct violation to the First Amendment. The correct phrasing should be, “The Protection of the Church from the State.” If there was a “Wall of Separation” between the church and the state, than it would have been written into the bill.
I was disappointed when my Critical Thinking class was over, but the lessons I learned were valuable. On January 20th an invocation will be delivered. Our soon to be president, Barak Obama, has enacted his right to choose Rev. Warren to pray during his inauguration. I hope, for our sakes, that the First Amendment will be used to protect our rights and not trample them. Do not look at the First Amendment as a control on the church. But, look at it as stipulations between congress and the people. The Declaration of Independence was written on behalf of the people to the King of England. In the same way, the Bill of Rights was written on behalf of the people to the Congress of the United States of America.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
But Obama said he wouldn't?!
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Dumbama says he supports the Second Amendment, but does he? The above is straight from the new & improved www.whitehouse.gov . Soooo what is wrong with it you may ask? How about its just a flat lie.
First Tiahrt Amendment does not restrict local law enforcement from trace data. If a firearm has been used in a crime any law enforcement agency can access that data to investigate a crime. What it does do is prevent lawyers from accessing the data to create huge law suits against gun companies. It also does not allow anyone random access to go fishing for something to charge you with. It is like a door on your house. Do you want anyone from the government just randomly wandering through your house to see what you can be charged with? It is the exact same thing. Again when a firearm is used in a crime any law enforcement agency can access the data.
How about keeping guns away from children that seems like a good measure right? Except if protecting children is your goal, you would be more effective if you went after swimming pools. That’s right swimming pools. More children are killed in drowning accidents every year than are harmed by firearms, according to the Center for disease control. The fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible. Since they are responsible, they teach their children gun safety.
Gun show loopholes is next. What loophole? If a dealer sells a gun anywhere, gun show, store, or even your backyard, he has to go through the same process. Fill out all the forms, a federal criminal background check, and any other local regulations. So where is the loop hole? There are none. What is really at work here is the private transfer of firearms. I have a shotgun that has been handed down through about three generations in my family. The shotgun will go to my son and his son after that. This so called loophole will stop that from happening. Can you imagine not being able to hand down a family heirloom?
Last but not least is the Assault weapons ban. This targets the most popular rifle in the country, the Armalite model 15 or AR-15. (AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle) This rifle is NOT used by the military. The military use an M-16 that has a selective fire switch. The AR-15 is a family defense weapon, hunting rifle, and plinking rifle. It is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. It is the most popular weapon being sold right now. Every manufacturer of this weapon is back ordered. So why ban it? Cause it looks dangerous? I see people walking the streets all the time that look dangerous, do we allow the police to lock them up for looking dangerous? How about for looking stupid? (Although the argument could be made to lock up stupid people.)
During the ninety’s we were subjected to a ban on certain types of guns. We must ask did it accomplish anything. Well the answer is, NO! As a matter of fact the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006 said that not a single Law Enforcement Officer was killed using an “Assault Rifle”. The FBI said Law Enforcement was more likely to be killed with their own handgun. Finally when the ban was lifted what happened? Nothing! There was not an increase in gun violence. There were no gangs of raping & pillaging running through the streets. The only thing that has happened is the price of these weapons came more to a market price, instead of the inflated ban price.
So there you have it. The truth about dumbama and his support for the second amendment. You have to ask yourself if he is this wrong on something so clear, how can he be clear on anything?
Dumbama says he supports the Second Amendment, but does he? The above is straight from the new & improved www.whitehouse.gov . Soooo what is wrong with it you may ask? How about its just a flat lie.
First Tiahrt Amendment does not restrict local law enforcement from trace data. If a firearm has been used in a crime any law enforcement agency can access that data to investigate a crime. What it does do is prevent lawyers from accessing the data to create huge law suits against gun companies. It also does not allow anyone random access to go fishing for something to charge you with. It is like a door on your house. Do you want anyone from the government just randomly wandering through your house to see what you can be charged with? It is the exact same thing. Again when a firearm is used in a crime any law enforcement agency can access the data.
How about keeping guns away from children that seems like a good measure right? Except if protecting children is your goal, you would be more effective if you went after swimming pools. That’s right swimming pools. More children are killed in drowning accidents every year than are harmed by firearms, according to the Center for disease control. The fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible. Since they are responsible, they teach their children gun safety.
Gun show loopholes is next. What loophole? If a dealer sells a gun anywhere, gun show, store, or even your backyard, he has to go through the same process. Fill out all the forms, a federal criminal background check, and any other local regulations. So where is the loop hole? There are none. What is really at work here is the private transfer of firearms. I have a shotgun that has been handed down through about three generations in my family. The shotgun will go to my son and his son after that. This so called loophole will stop that from happening. Can you imagine not being able to hand down a family heirloom?
Last but not least is the Assault weapons ban. This targets the most popular rifle in the country, the Armalite model 15 or AR-15. (AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle) This rifle is NOT used by the military. The military use an M-16 that has a selective fire switch. The AR-15 is a family defense weapon, hunting rifle, and plinking rifle. It is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. It is the most popular weapon being sold right now. Every manufacturer of this weapon is back ordered. So why ban it? Cause it looks dangerous? I see people walking the streets all the time that look dangerous, do we allow the police to lock them up for looking dangerous? How about for looking stupid? (Although the argument could be made to lock up stupid people.)
During the ninety’s we were subjected to a ban on certain types of guns. We must ask did it accomplish anything. Well the answer is, NO! As a matter of fact the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006 said that not a single Law Enforcement Officer was killed using an “Assault Rifle”. The FBI said Law Enforcement was more likely to be killed with their own handgun. Finally when the ban was lifted what happened? Nothing! There was not an increase in gun violence. There were no gangs of raping & pillaging running through the streets. The only thing that has happened is the price of these weapons came more to a market price, instead of the inflated ban price.
So there you have it. The truth about dumbama and his support for the second amendment. You have to ask yourself if he is this wrong on something so clear, how can he be clear on anything?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Welfare is immoral and ungodly!
The recent financial crisis in our country has brought about some terrible things in our country. The financial bailouts of banks and large coorperations have simply reinforced how immoral the welfare system is.
First since the inception of welfare with FDR during the great depression the thought of the government must help us out of any crisis we face continues to grow. “A chicken in every pot” thinking allows the politician to simply write checks to anyone that is in financial difficulties. This method of governing encourages irresponsible behavior and poor planning. Corporations and individuals no longer feel they should make provisions for tough times because the government will take care of us. Fewer and fewer people have savings or more than two days worth of food on hand. As large as the government is it can never be large enough to meet the needs of everyone.
Here is another evil. Welfare is ungodly. The Scripture teaches that we should work. Work is actually a blessing, not a curse as we perceive it. In Genesis (Gen 2:15) Adam is told to take care of the Garden. This was not a punishment. It was the furtherance of Adam being created in God’s image. God was a worker. He created. He labored. He was active. He did not just sit by and watch things happen. Welfare goes against the concept of work. The Bible tells the harvesters to leave the corners and edges of the fields unharvested so the poor could come out and gather food for themselves. Nowhere in scripture is the concept of getting something for nothing presented. Everyone is required to work and provide for their family.
Welfare is a type of anti-christ. Anti-christ can be translated to mean instead of Christ, in addition to against Christ. People have become to depend on the welfare system instead of the Messiah. There no longer is a need for someone in a dire situation to press in and seek the face of God in difficulty. They simply look to the welfare monster to meet their needs. Difficulties no longer cause the poor to cry out the Lord, rather they cry out to the welfare anti-christ. Save us from our poverty. The disappointment is this welfare does not deliver freedom. It only delivers slavery.
So the next time someone attempts to present the virtue of welfare and all of its subdivisions remember you are dealing with evil. Evil must be defeated not negotiated with. Be prepared to reveal the truth of the evil that welfare and big government is. Deal with evil according to the scripture principles. Resist it and overcome it.
First since the inception of welfare with FDR during the great depression the thought of the government must help us out of any crisis we face continues to grow. “A chicken in every pot” thinking allows the politician to simply write checks to anyone that is in financial difficulties. This method of governing encourages irresponsible behavior and poor planning. Corporations and individuals no longer feel they should make provisions for tough times because the government will take care of us. Fewer and fewer people have savings or more than two days worth of food on hand. As large as the government is it can never be large enough to meet the needs of everyone.
Here is another evil. Welfare is ungodly. The Scripture teaches that we should work. Work is actually a blessing, not a curse as we perceive it. In Genesis (Gen 2:15) Adam is told to take care of the Garden. This was not a punishment. It was the furtherance of Adam being created in God’s image. God was a worker. He created. He labored. He was active. He did not just sit by and watch things happen. Welfare goes against the concept of work. The Bible tells the harvesters to leave the corners and edges of the fields unharvested so the poor could come out and gather food for themselves. Nowhere in scripture is the concept of getting something for nothing presented. Everyone is required to work and provide for their family.
Welfare is a type of anti-christ. Anti-christ can be translated to mean instead of Christ, in addition to against Christ. People have become to depend on the welfare system instead of the Messiah. There no longer is a need for someone in a dire situation to press in and seek the face of God in difficulty. They simply look to the welfare monster to meet their needs. Difficulties no longer cause the poor to cry out the Lord, rather they cry out to the welfare anti-christ. Save us from our poverty. The disappointment is this welfare does not deliver freedom. It only delivers slavery.
So the next time someone attempts to present the virtue of welfare and all of its subdivisions remember you are dealing with evil. Evil must be defeated not negotiated with. Be prepared to reveal the truth of the evil that welfare and big government is. Deal with evil according to the scripture principles. Resist it and overcome it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
