The old Soviet Union was well known for vodka, borscht and re-education camps. As awful as the first two sound, the third was far worse as citizens who did not tow the party line and were perceived to be a threat to the government were sent off to have their thinking adjusted. To the American mind, steeped in the concept of free speech, the idea of punishment for unpopular “thought crimes” convinced those of us who lived through the cold war of the righteousness of our cause.

Back during the poisonous sixties, radicals were fond of telling us “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”, misattributed to Thomas Jefferson – perhaps to give them some undeserved credibility. These same people, now grown older and having wormed their way into positions of power are now singing a different tune. Many of these were professional students who never left the ivy covered halls of academia. They never learned about life in the real world and have done little but let their disastrous ideas percolate until they are now in a position to execute them.

Augusta State University student Jennifer Keeton has run into the work of these guardians of secular humanistic doctrine. She has been told that, to complete her masters degree in counseling, she must set aside her Christian beliefs about homosexuality and submit to a re-education program… or be expelled from the university. The university, of all places, purports to be a place of acceptance and open discussion, yet there there are some ideas and concepts just too radical for these old time radicals.

While the mortar board set is fond of telling us that there are no absolutes, that each person is responsible for finding their own “truth”, they are absolutely sure that some “truths” just are not acceptable enough to be explored, or even talked about in polite company. In spite of their high sounding “academic freedom” rhetoric, there is an “absolute truth” they live by. That truth is no one can criticize or question the validity of the homosexual experience.

Fortunately, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, Jennifer Keeton is fighting back by suing the school that will accept deviant life styles, almost every form or religion and atheism, but not Christianity. There is a clear case of religious discrimination… the kind we are told is illegal. This young lady is standing up and fighting the good fight. We wish her well, and we all need to keep her in our prayers.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

As everyone universally acknowledges, there are more children being raised by single mothers today than at any time in our nation’s history. Obviously, divorce is far and away the biggest contributor to this unfortunate phenomenon. But another factor is that many women are choosing to have children out of wedlock. And, of course, a small percentage of single mothers became this way due to the premature deaths of their husbands. But it is safe to say that the vast majority of fatherless families are the result of choice, not circumstance.

The ramifications of raising children without a father are taking a toll, not only on children, but also on society itself. According to published reports, 63% of teen suicides come from fatherless homes, 90% of all runaways and homeless children come from fatherless homes, 80% of rapists come from fatherless homes, 85% of children with behavioral problems come from fatherless homes, 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes, and 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes. See the following sources for these (and related) stats:

http://www.fathermag.com/news/1780-stats.shtml

http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm

Before militant feminists assail me as a sexist and male chauvinist, I most certainly understand that there are many examples of women who have overcome the most adverse circumstances in order to raise fine, upstanding children. I not only understand it theoretically, but I also understand it practically, as a single mother raised my wife, and she turned out marvelously (as did her older sister and younger brother). My mother-in-law is among the outstanding success stories of single women who have overcome some of the most adverse circumstances possible to successfully raise three young children. All three children are living prosperous, productive lives, and not one of them is dysfunctional or criminal. So, to all the Betty Friedans out there, please spare me your jaded knee-jerk reactions and mindless accusations!

That there are wonderful exceptions to the rule doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming majority of evidence conclusively proves that a family is much better off when Dad is in it. Boys, especially, require the firm hand of masculine leadership. And that is a fact! And this brings to mind another problem: many fathers are either chronically away from home due to work schedules or are deliberately taking a passive, non-leadership role in the home. Either way, the result is the same: too many families are experiencing a dearth of masculine leadership. Let’s say it another way: masculine leadership is needed now more than ever!

Black families have been hit especially hard. According to the Pew Research Center (PRC), 72% of all black babies born in 2008 were out of wedlock. For all intents and purposes, the black community is now overwhelmingly a matriarchal society. Is it any wonder that the crime rate is so high among young black males?

PRC also reported that 53% of all Hispanic babies born in 2008 were out of wedlock, 29% of white babies born in 2008 were out of wedlock, and 17% of Asian babies born in 2008 were out of wedlock. Nationwide, 41% of all babies born in 2008 were out of wedlock.

The lack of masculine discipline and leadership in America’s homes is easily visible everywhere you go. Stroll down the aisle of most any shopping center, eat out at just about any restaurant, and attend practically any movie theater or church service and one is inundated with unruly, disrespectful, disobedient, bratty kids. And in almost every instance, there is either no father anywhere to be found, or if he is present, he is completely unattached and devoid of leadership skills.

I recently witnessed one of these out-of-control brats take almost total control of a restaurant with his incessant temper tantrums, while the mother hid her face in her hands (literally) and the father buried his head in a newspaper. Meanwhile, the entire restaurant (customers and staff) was forced to endure an hour of non-stop belligerence and blood-curdling screaming. In the meantime, I am still anxiously waiting for the first restaurant that provides a “brat-free” section, similar to the way they often provide a “smoke-free” section: I want to be its first customer! (Commercial airplanes need such a section, too.)

There are many contributing factors to the decline of masculine leadership, of course. Society, itself, has mostly feminized our entire culture by ridiculing and lampooning manhood. Note the television commercials and programs that denigrate fatherhood. In most of these commercials and shows, the dad is caricatured as being the resident nincompoop, a bungling buffoon who barely has enough sense to walk and chew gum at the same time. Hollywood is no better. Think about it: when was the last movie you saw that extolled genuine masculinity? I’m not talking about bulging muscles, either. I’m talking about moral strength along with the inner character of virtue and integrity. As far as the social acceptance of masculinity is concerned, it seems that manhood died out with the black and white westerns.

Think, too, about how our children are being raised. The vast majority of them are being raised in a home devoid of strong, masculine leadership. In our schools (public, private, parochial, or Christian) the vast majority of teachers are women. The same is true for most churches. Think about it: unless a young man plays sports, he may grow from childhood to adulthood without hardly ever being exposed to real masculine leadership. No wonder more and more boys seem to be confused about their sexuality.

In addition, our laws increasingly discriminate against fatherhood. Let a father discipline his children according to Biblical instruction and there is a very good chance that he will be charged with some sort of criminal abuse, and have his children taken from his home by the authorities. Even an unfounded or unsubstantiated accusation against a father can result in State agencies removing his children from his home. Furthermore, the father may be subjected to a lifetime of government harassment by being permanently declared some sort of child abuser; he may also be forced to forfeit his freedom to purchase a firearm or to live where he chooses.

I can tell you this: if a bruised butt is evidence of child abuse, I was abused BIG TIME! My dad took seriously that maxim, “Spare the rod; spoil the child.” I can say this, however: I never got a spanking that I did not deserve; and looking back on it, I thank God for every spanking I got, because Dad’s correction gave me the sense of security, love, and direction that I desperately needed to make the right choices in life. I shudder to think where (or what) I would be today had my father not disciplined me. I also thank God that I was raised in a better time, when the culture had not ditched the laws of God and Nature in favor of this stupid, senseless, asinine political correctness that is rampant today!

I tell you the truth: there are not too many problems that could not be solved today with an old-fashioned, honest, morally upright, courageous disciplinarian-father who would lovingly bring up his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. And let’s all remember that it is extremely difficult for a man to be this kind of father without the love and support of his wife. In this regard, the feminist movement is largely responsible for destroying both the femininity of our women and the masculinity of our men.

So, while we are rightly concerned and focused on the myriad problems facing us today, let’s remember that America has no greater need than the need of families to be led and strengthened by good, Godly fathers. Furthermore, that is something each of us men should aspire to do beyond anything else. To paraphrase the words of our Lord, “What shall it profit a father if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own children?”

Therefore, to all of America’s outstanding fathers out there who quietly go about the business of being an example to their children; who consistently and humbly discipline their children; who instill the time-tested principles of honor, integrity, and devotion in the hearts of their children; who bravely accept the responsibility of fatherhood without grumbling and complaining; and who are willing to put the security and well-being of their families above their own personal pursuits: HAPPY FATHER’S DAY!

For more by Chuck Baldwin, go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered

Independent Journal

Saturday, January 26, 1788

[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States.

The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.

Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons.

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

PUBLIUS

A dear friend of mine; who is a prominent Rabbi, sent me a letter regarding the expression of this concern by certain quarters. I thank G-d that it was not from him because we had already built our relationship on genuine friendship and we know each others hearts.

However, I will share with our Members the official response that I had regarding this “threat” . Let me be clear to my Jewish friends that this is not an answer to my esteemed, rabbinical friend, this is an official response to what has been deemed , “The Threat of Messianic Judaism”:

Dear Rabbi (Name deleted),

I read with interest the article that you sent and I guess I can see how it would present an interesting dilemma for those that are committed to their Orthodox Jewish faith. However, I do not feel that I am qualified to offer an opinion or judgment on the motivation of others of the Christian faith, so as a Christian I will address this from my own, personal perspective.

Personally, it is impossible for me not to have a love for the Jewish people because of the invaluable contribution that they have made to the propagation of the Gospel that I read, believe and preach. All of the Prophets, Apostles and Christ himself were Jews. In understanding this I feel it is imperative to have a greater understanding of the heritage, culture and mind set of these literary giants of our faith.

Secondly, as Psalm 122:6 implores us all to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, I personally believe that the welfare of the whole world is tied in with our commitment to the welfare of the Jewish people and their homeland; that blessed city of King David.

Rabbi, this is the foundation for the love and commitment that I feel to Zion and the Jewish people. It is also the driving force behind the pro-Israel work that I do. Besides that, I personally have been blessed to meet some really great people in my endeavors; you being one of them.

Even if we look at our uniting from a New Testament perspective, with regards to the popular scripture in Romans that addresses the relationship of Jews and Christians, Christians will see that they are admonished not to boast over being grafted into the Olive Tree because, “You do not support the root, but the root supports you.” (Romans 11:18) I believe that it might be surprising to find that many Christians share these sentiments.

Anyway my dear friend, I hope this helps to shed a little light on the sincerity of my work and interaction with the beloved Jewish people.

You can read more by Pastor Wallace at http://www.shalomcaribbean.com

Sometime back, he was invited to give a devotional at a National Prayer Luncheon held at Andrews Air Force Base, just outside the liberal bastion of beltway thinking. However, somewhere along the line, commanders, ever mindful of their promotional opportunities and their relationship to their civilian leaders, decided that it would be best if Tony Perkins not spread his common sense ideas among the men in their charge.

Perkins was told that he and his group were “incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our commander in chief.” Some would call it censorship if messengers are denied access based on their message. It is clear that only one message on this topic is permitted in the military and and our government in general.

This pattern is seen in our indoctrination centers called public schools, in all sorts of public offices and in the formerly mainstream media. This is a pattern that has been repeated in our country and others, always with negative consequences. Joseph Goebbels was quoted as saying, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

We need to be aware of this pattern… and I believe most of us are… but we need to let it guide our thinking and our actions. We need to keep speaking the truth, possibly being prepared for some negative consequences.

Even beyond adjusting their actions and policies to what many call the “gay agenda”, which is nothing more than gaining public acceptance of essentially antisocial behavior, it is possible to see an even more sinister undertone to the official response to Perkins. Let’s look at it again. Consider, “our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our commander in chief.”

I hope you will forgive my antiquated concepts, but it was always my understanding that our military and other governmental organizations existed to serve the people of the United States, not the congress and president. The military reports to these people who are supposed to be representing the welfare of the citizens. It has been reported that, at one time the new President wanted the military to take an oath of allegiance to him… not the country… not the flag… not even the people, but to the President, one Barack Hussein Obama. Thank God for groups like Oatkeepers who, having sworn to uphold the constitution are actually planning to do it in spite of orders that may come down to the contrary by commanders with more loyalty to the politicians who have such control over their career prospects.

We even saw this in the so-called health care summit, broadcast live to thousands where the President admonished GOP attendees that they should not be concentrating on the things they don’t like, but should be working on areas of common agreement. It’s as if other viewpoints do not exist, or at least, are not important enough to be considered… or perhaps these are the ideas that expose the lies of the state.

We see more and more dissenting views stifled, either officially as with “hate crimes” legislation or through attempts to homogenize our thoughts be defining acceptable ideas and discounting outliers. We can let the progressives inflict their distorted world view on us and our children or we can continue to speak the truth… and allow the truth to set us free.

Nimrod was the first would-be tyrant to try and bring the world into a global “New World Order.” His handiwork produced the Tower of Babel, which brought about a cataclysmic judgment from Jehovah. However, while Nimrod was the first globalist to try and unify the nations against God, he was certainly not the last. The Pharaohs, Darius, Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Alexander, Nebuchadnezzar, the Caesars, and hundreds like them have all brought their tyrannical rule over the hearts of men. And their ideas and passions are as alive and active in the world today as ever.

With every would-be world tyrant, there is one constant: the unholy marriage between a supranational government and Big Religion. If Jehovah God made anything clear in the Mosaic model of government, it was the fact that–until Christ Himself comes to occupy both offices–the offices of Priest and King were to be eternally separate. At least one Old Testament Jewish king learned that lesson the hard way.

Yet, Big Government and Big Religion have always come together for the purpose of enslaving the masses. The devilish duo of Big Government and Big Religion killed the Old Testament prophets. They hung Jesus on the cross and persecuted the early Church. They murdered masses during the Dark Ages; they managed the Holocaust; and their obnoxious offspring are still at work today. This criminal cabal has been the bane of genuine faith and personal liberty since the beginning of time.

When Colonial America fired that shot heard around the world and fought their way to independence, they broke free, not only from the political domination of the Crown, but also from the religious domination of a State Church. No longer would citizens be required to join a particular church in order to hold public office. No longer would citizens be required to financially support churches and institutions they deemed to be offensive to their spiritual convictions. No longer could a religious institution use the power and force of civil government to subjugate men to its tenets and, yes, tentacles. Indeed, the apostate kingdom created by Constantine’s spiritual whoredom ended at the eastern shore of America!

And dare I say that I am proud of my Anabaptist forebears for helping to embed the principle of religious liberty into American law and jurisprudence? Indeed, I am! What many Americans do not know (and what many militant secularists refuse to acknowledge) is that it was the influence of the Colonial Baptists–most notably, the Baptist minister John Leland—that was most responsible for the First Amendment being added to the US Constitution.

Therefore, it is more than disturbing when I see evangelical Christians being seduced by the ancient Big Government/Big Religion whorish union today. How can any true Gospel preacher accept federal Faith-Based Initiative monies, except that he has either lost all understanding of what freedom truly means, or is willing to sacrifice the sacred principles of liberty upon the altar of his own selfish interests? How can any true Gospel preacher not realize that Big Religion has always conspired with tyrannical governmental forces against the true Gospel message? Why are they so blind to these devilish conspiracies? At the highest levels of virtually every major religion, the conspiracy to hijack truth and enslave the masses is constantly at work, whether it is Catholicism, Judaism, or Protestantism.

This is what the Apostle Paul warned about in Ephesians 6:12. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Of course, the “rulers of the darkness of this world” are demonic. But it is also an absolute certainty that these demonic forces accomplish their devilish deeds through evil men who are given to “spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Was not the spiritual netherworld complicit in helping to construct Nimrod’s Tower of Babel? Was not spiritual wickedness at work when Pharaoh murdered the little children of the Hebrews? Were not dark principalities at work when Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone to bow to the image of the Babylonian leader? When the Lord Jesus called Jewish King Herod a “fox,” was not He acknowledging Herod’s complicity with evil? Were not spiritual powers aiding and abetting the Jewish Sanhedrin when they moved the crowd to crucify the Son of God? When the early Church was being persecuted, was not spiritual wickedness at work? When nonconforming Christians were thrown to the lions and sawn asunder, were not their tormentors influenced by these same rulers of darkness? Of course they were!

Then, why is it so difficult for modern Christians–especially our pastors and preachers–to understand that this unholy union of Big Government and Big Religion is as evil and sinful today as it ever was? Why are they unwilling to recognize that the same devilish system that plagued the Church throughout the ages–suspended only temporarily by the successful revolution for American independence–is rearing its ugly head again? Why are they unwilling to believe that many of America’s leaders (from both parties) routinely give themselves to luciferian rituals, such as those annual dances around the fire at the Bohemian Grove? Why is it so hard to believe that we have leaders (from both parties) who have given themselves to dark, secret societies, such as Skull and Bones? Why are they not suspicious when certain religious schools and institutions repeatedly produce many of the leaders (from both parties) who seem to universally take America down the same path of globalism?

As most Christians should know, The Beast of Revelation is as much a SYSTEM as it is a person. As the Apostle John warned, the “spirit of antichrist . . . even now already is it in the world.” (I John 4:3) He also warned, “Even now are there many antichrists.” (I John 2:18)

Any Big Government/Big Religion system that seeks to bring nations into global unity, enshrine a politically correct theology of universalism, establish Church/State uniformity, and marginalize independent, nonconformist ideology is nothing more than the emergence of another Tower of Babel or Beast-like system! And, dear Christian friend, has it occurred to you that our central government in Washington, D.C., is currently engaged in all of the above?

Both political parties–including most of our national leaders and news media–actively promote globalism; universalism is, without a doubt, the unofficial–but clearly understood–national religion; and anyone who holds nonconformist views (i.e., pro-life, Jesus-only theology, anti-UN, anti-illegal immigration, questioning official government explanations of national tragedies, etc.) is being viciously ridiculed, impugned, and marginalized by virtually everyone in the national press corps and central government. Yes, I am saying it, THE BEAST IS EMERGING IN WASHINGTON, D.C.!

The powers that be in both Big Government and Big Religion want to control both our hearts and our minds. They cannot tolerate dissent. Mind you: they do not care if one is Republican or Democrat, because at the national level, both major parties are marching in the same beastly direction. They do not care if one is conservative or liberal, because the leaders of both camps are, likewise, marching in lockstep to the tune being played by The Beast. They do not care if one is Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant, because at the highest levels, these religions are committing whoredom with The Beast.

If a pastor or preacher is going to be true to his calling today, he must be willing to adopt the philosophy of the late, great Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who said, “The more prominent you are in Christ’s service, the more certain are you to be the butt of calumny [slander]. I have long ago said farewell to my character. I lost it in the earlier days of my ministry by being a little more zealous than suited a slumbering age. And I have never been able to regain it except in the sight of Him who judges all the earth, and in the hearts of those who love me for my work’s sake.”

Any desire for promotion, pleasure, riches, or fame will quickly make one a servant of The Beast. And, I’m afraid, that is exactly what many of today’s pastors and preachers have become.

The fight for independence was as much for the freedom of the heart and mind as it was for the freedom of a State or nation. In fact, one cannot enslave the latter until he first enslaves the former. And this is what is currently at stake: the freedom of the heart and soul to be governed by God and no other! And this battle will never be won–at least not nationally–as long as Christians and pastors are unwilling to recognize the enemy for what it is: “spiritual wickedness in high places.”

If you would like to check out more from Chuck Baldwin, go to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/

The specifics of the study are not as important as the fact that academic rejection of the results was as predictable as Barack Hussein Obama’s use of duel teleprompters. Instead of hailing the study as something promising in the battle against teen pregnancy and STDs, the reaction showed the kneejerk reaction of the entrenched secularists as they sought to discredit both the study and its conclusions. We have seen this behavior before… many times.

Instead of using science as the path the truth, it is being used like a drunk clinging to a lamp post… more for support than illumination. This is the very same intellectual dishonesty they continually accuse those who are foolish enough to actually believe the principles of the Bible. We should be used to this by now… science eventually confirming the words of the same creator that endowed us with unalienable rights.

In this case, the behaviors encouraged by the Bible have actually resulted in children that were spared the angst and health debilities of growing up too early in brave new progressive world. We need to take this lesson to heart and let it guide out actions as we move forward.

We are dealing with a movement much like Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union. Both sought to replace belief and trust in God with trust and allegiance to the state. While the Soviets pushed the atheistic philosophy more aggressively, they both saw the state a supreme. We are facing an American government that is increasingly hostile to religion… at least Christianity… and building an infrastructure to encompass every area of our life and meet all our needs.

This most recent revelation needs to take us one (or more) steps closer to understanding that academics, like government function better as our servants instead of our masters. We need education and we need government, yet as we view the constitution and read our founder fathers, we see that both were instituted to preserve rather than restrict our freedoms… to enhance and complement rather than destroy our way of life and values.

We have an administration infested with more academicians and moderated by fewer real people with real world experience and wisdom than any before it in the history of our country. Those of us lacking Ivy League credentials are looked down upon by those with them and our standards are devalued by those who feel they are better than us poor, bitter dummies who cling to our guns and our god. It is time to stop this catering to vocal, pompous minority that feels they have the right to set the national course for all of us… no matter what we say. After all, we are just a slobbering mass of inferiority.

We have the numbers and we have the passion to stop this. Do we have the courage to see it through? Are we going to do the heavy lifting and make the sacrifices to reclaim our freedom and our country? The answer had jolly well better be a resounding “YES!’

There is no easy answer to this question and to come to either conclusion without serious soul searching, investigation and prayer is to short change the gravity of the decisions implications. The ripples emanating from this choice extend to all areas of our lives. Do we treat our fellow men as physical or spiritual beings… when there are aspects of both in our total existence.

Many Catholic priests ventured into South American countries and saw the poverty of the peasants and the various injustices inflicted on them by the wealthy landowners. They thought they could eradicate poverty by eradicating sin… primarily the sin of the capitalists exploiting the poor. Forsaking their mandate to meet the spiritual needs of the people in their charge, they undertook to bring about a change in the social structure through a philosophy that came to be known as liberation theology. Many variations stemmed from this school of thought, including the black liberation theology espoused by Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual advisor Jeremiah Wright.

They took the teachings of Jesus that he came to bring, not peace, but a sword, as justification for fomenting social unrest. The irony is that the basis of this theology/philosophy was the teaching of atheist Karl Marx.

Having graduated from a school with a faculty populated by the likes of Ron Sider and Tony Campolo, I heard various aspects of a variation of this teaching called the social gospel, which also put greater emphasis on the here and now over the by and by. They are both good men and the school is a fine place to learn, but there was something that didn’t seem right. What I found when looking into the thinking of people who find this teaching tickling their ears was a rejection of concepts such as inerrancy and infallibility of the scripture, which actually reflects on the reliability of the scripture. Much more was thrown open to interpretation. Instead of using the scripture to measure and judge their actions, they sit in judgment of what is properly included or interpreted.

I remember sitting in a theology class when the professor was explaining how he believed in the “progressive revelation”, but rejected the commonly held belief in a triune God consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I raised my hand to ask how he came to this conclusion since his understanding of the diety was aligned with earlier portions of the Bible. The answer was one I remember to this day, “You aren’t going to like the answer, but you just sort of have to pick and choose what seems right to you.” He was right, I did not like the answer, but this is what many are doing today when they select scripture to support atheistic and humanistic philosophies.

It is when we start reading what we want to read and make the rules that we want to make that we go off in directions that were never intended for us that we get ourselves in trouble. It’s when we forget that Jesus told us many things… among them “The poor you will always have with you” when responding to critics of Mary Magdelene anointing him with expensive perfume (Matthew 26:11), indicating the futility of eradicating poverty through human means and the existence of higher priorities. He followed this up by telling his followers “Go and make disciples” (Matthew 28:19), indicating the task he valued most for them.

Using the class warfare paradigm of their Marxist forefathers, the Christians who promote “social change” self-righteously accuse others with a more spiritual view of scriptures of not caring for the plight of the poor. If they were to follow up this judgment with significant contributions from their own resources, their arguments would be carry more weight and credibility. But most don’t do this. They look to the taxing power of the government to confiscate resources of everyone to bring their vision of justice into fruition.

If they are really doing this to follow religious convictions, they deny others the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit – a right guaranteed under the First Amendment. That is, of course, the Marxist approach, not the Christian.

Although often repeated, the accusation of lack of concern just does not hold water if one looks at evangelical and Catholic charities with an honest eye. Many years ago, the man liberals, Christian and otherwise, love to hate, Pat Robertson, began a program called Operation Blessing (http://www.ob.org). Operation Blessing provides orphan care, disaster and hunger relief, medical services as well as well drilling in impoverished areas in the US and around the world. Millions of dollars are raised each year from people who believe in sharing God’s love by meeting physical needs… which places the emphasis exactly where it belongs as we find in entire book of James. Operation Blessing is just one of many organizations seeking to spread Christian teaching by meeting physical needs. Check out groups like Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision and others listed by the Evangelical Council for Financial accountability who provide personal and medical care to those who cannot afford them while maintaining open and honest books for their contributors.

When we look at the public financial statements of some of the most well known advocates of government assistance for the downtrodden, we find little if any personal investment in their fellow man. On the other hand, those baring the brunt of public abuse for neglecting the plight of he poor are the ones giving to make the many charitable programs work. Where is the public outrage, where is the reporting by our guardians of truth in the media? The answer is that the story is spiked along with any other that does not fit their template of what the public should know and think. You know the truth and I know the truth. It’s up to us to spread the word and not give in to baseless accusations and propaganda.

There was the usual collection of cliches intermixed with some personal stories of the sacrifices his mother made for him along the way. He said the right things… or his teleprompter did. The only line that may have been troublesome was when he fell into the community organizer mode and told the young impressionable minds that they should study and work to make the nation more fair and free. This really begs the question of what the speech would have been like absent the public outcry. Some reports thought the speech was inspiring, and it might have been if one was an awestruck fifth grader.

For those of us who have had our fill of the false statements coming out of the presidential mouth it was fairly apparent that he was applying Saul Alinisky’s Rule Number Two about keeping your verbiage within the scope expected by the audience. The President said all the right things and in the process gave his supporters reason to claim the detractors were just paranoid.

Perhaps the irate parents reaction was just learned response combined with protective instincts toward their children. This president has a history of saying and doing things that run counter to our traditional American values, so it is understandable… especially in view of the initial set of instructions to the teachers that had the children writing down ways they could help the President implement his nefarious schemes – my terms, not theirs.

Many reporters went out of their way to belittle and caricature the concerned parents. Their fearless leader (apologies to Rocky and Bullwinkle) was coming down from Mount White House to impart his wisdom to the children of the peasants. The parents should be grateful we were told. While he is not the president, one has to wonder if the reaction would be the same if a near universally respected preacher like Billy Graham were to encourage students to stay in school and study hard. We would most likely have a YouTube overrun with televised conniption fits. Yet, the statist religion is not only accepted, but promoted by the President’s lackeys in the media.

Unfortunately it is virtually impossible to separate the office from politics and political considerations. Since almost everything the man does impacts the publics perception of him and his job, it’s hard not to look at everything Obama does as being politically inspired because it does have political impact.

During my school days of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, the President was a big deal as well as anything having to do with him. Had the President made a speech just for us kids, I would have hung on every word, regardless of party or reputation… at least during my early years, and that is the way it should be. In any event, the whole thing turned out to be pretty much of a big nothing – yet it’s hopeful that many of the impressionable young minds picked up on on his message of hard work and personal responsibility.

That is the same personal responsibility the whole Obama administration is working to take over for each and every one of us. This minor point does sort of lead one to question the sincerity behind the cliché ridden talk. In spite of the humdrum nature of the whole event, given the teflon nature of the man in the oval office, he probably still made some gains and got a few more people to like him… and that fulfilled his primary need in life.

Amid the brouhaha the White House backed off and issued a less aggressive program guide. The peasants rejoiced that they had won a small victory over the intrusive administration. But, what really happened? The President is still by-passing parents and addressing the young, impressionable minds, that are accompanied by teachers, many of whom are already enamored of the One. We need to watch this pattern from the current administration of an outrageous intrusion into our lives followed by a willingness to back off slightly if there is too much public outcry.

Some parents are looking at keeping their children home on the day of the address. If enough do this, it could make an impression on the various school districts. There is a concerned parent from Louisiana who is formalizing this with the idea of a Parent Approved Skip School (PASS) Day. He has gone so far as to provide a sample letter to explain this act of civil disobedience. You can find a copy at http://bizy.be/345z4.

I heard a caller on talk radio yesterday come up with the idea of accompanying their child to school that day and sitting in on the class. This may be an even better idea that will be sure to incur the wrath of the “educational professionals”.

In any case it’s good to check with your local school, for no other reason than to let them know you are watching. In my locality (Chesterfield VA) the school system has informed me that it is recording the talk for possible later use. In the City of Richmond, they are planning to make presentation an opt-out option. Reports are that in Tempe AZ attendance will be required and no opt-out will be available. Each district is different, so be sure and check for yourself. In any case, it’s always good to let the public educational establishment know they are under a microscope.

If your district is recording the speech, it means your child will not be exposed on September 8, but the downside is that it can be played back at any time… with, or without your knowledge or consent. It would not hurt to ask for a copy of the material, much like you would do if you wanted to review text books. If the school balks, a FOIA request would always be appropriate, from you and from as many like minded parents as possible. In fact, under almost any circumstance, obtaining a copy of his talk would be useful… especially if it could be disseminated to other interested parties.

Some statists have accused those of us who are concerned about the end run around parental involvement as paranoid. I’ve always said that just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean you don’t have enemies. They cannot comprehend how we could think the that the President could have anything but a desire to see our children do well in school and in life. In a way, this may be true, but we know intentions do not guarantee results, and what he sees as doing well may fall far short of our desires for our children and grandchildren.

C.S. Lewis has told us, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive”. So we can’t really go by the supposed good intentions of those wanting to direct our lives. We also know where the road leads that is paved with these good intentions… and it’s a place we want our children and grandchildren to stay as far away from as possible.