Category Archives: Politics

Assault Weapons

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

All the Demoncrat (misspelling intentional) presidential candidates are campaigning on the platform of banning assault weapons and some even advocate confiscation of all firearms. The push clearly violates the Second Amendment, which exists in part to protect the First Amendment. Their assault on assault weapons presents only one avenue for denying citizens of their God-given constitutional rights. The “Green New Deal” additionally would deprive citizens of anything they, in their reprobate minds,[1] perceive as harmful to the environment. They hypocritically play on the emotions of the ignorant while they surround themselves with armed bodyguards, travel across the country in private jets, eat the flesh of air-polluting bovine, and live in mansions that consume three and four times the energy than the average American family. However, for now I only want to focus on their war against assault weapons.

What is an assault weapon? Dictionary.com defines an assault weapon as “any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use.”[2] However, I would argue that is an incorrect definition. In the first place, we are looking at two words, not one. The first is an adjective modifying the second, so of the two, the second word – weapon – is the most significant.

Dictionary.com defines “weapon” as “any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle or cannon,” or “anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim.”[3] Here we see that a weapon can be used for offense (“attack”) or defense. We also see no special attention is given to “automatic or semiautomatic military firearms.” A third definition offered is in the area of zoology: “any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.”[4] Obviously, a weapon can either be used for defense or assault. Therefore, an assault weapon can also be a defensive weapon depending on its application. However, in order to remain consistent in our theme, we will keep our focus on “assault weapons.”

Since it is the modifier that makes the distinction, we need to know the meaning of “assault.” Dictionary.com defines “assault” as “(1) a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: (2) Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt to offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.”[5] This definition excludes the use of a weapon. By this definition, even words might be considered assault weapons. One example given is “an assault on tradition.”[6] Clearly, the rhetoric by the Demoncrats constitutes an assault on our liberty and the Constitution.

We have learned that assault weapons can be any instrument, including words, used in a sudden, violent attack upon another person. Since weapons are not restricted only to firearms of any kind, it may be informative to examine the different kinds of weapons that can be used in an assault.

Probably the first and oldest assault weapons known to man are hands. An open hand can land a stinging blow to a victim’s face which can cause contusions and even blindness if the blow lands on an eyeball. A closed hand becomes a club which can break facial bones and even cause death. Hands can be used to strangle the life out of a victim and are capable of crushing the larynx. Hands constitute assault weapons. Feet, knees, and elbows can also be used as clubs and make formidable assault weapons.

Speaking of clubs, these come in many shapes and sizes and are readily available from any sporting goods stores. I am speaking, of course, of baseball bats. Walking canes and sticks make good clubs, and speaking of walking, one can usually find a good assault weapon laying on the ground. We call them rocks.

The average home is full of excellent assault weapons: hammers, knives, scissors, iron skillets, rope, plastic bags, pillows, etc. Some of us carry assault weapons in our shirt pockets and do not even know it. I am talking about ballpoint pens. Jab that thing with enough force into someone’s eye, and it will likely penetrate the brain causing death.

The cars we drive can also be used as assault weapons. Perhaps that is why the Green New Deal would like to do away with them.

If the Demoncrats seriously want to ban assault weapons, think of all the things we would need to give up. No, the Demoncrats do not really concern themselves with assault weapons; they want firearm confiscation because a disarmed populous offers no resistance to their desire for controlling power. The Demoncrats strategically use rhetoric as an assault weapon against liberty by redefining terms. They have redefined “assault weapon” to focus primarily on semiautomatic rifles that resemble those used by the military, like the AR-15, primarily because they “look scary” and because they seem to be the weapon of choice by mass murderers due to their high magazine capacity. However, 2017 statistics[7] indicate that rifles (of which AR-15s are only one of a kind) accounted for only 403 murders while sharp instruments accounted for 1591 murders. Handguns, both revolvers and semiautomatic, accounted for 7,032. Perhaps Demoncrats do not make as big a fuss about handguns because that is what their personal bodyguards carry.

In conclusion, almost anything can be used as an assault weapon. By the same token, an assault weapon can also be used as a defense weapon; it all has to do with the intent of the user. The nature of a weapon depends on the its modifier and its application. I keep several firearms in my home. Most of my firearms are semiautomatic. I also keep several knives with blades ranging in length from two inches to 28 inches (my samurai swords). Most of these weapons stay in their place and collect dust. None of them are used for assault. However, if needed, they can all become defense weapons.

The Demoncrats are disingenuous with their assault on assault weapons, because the problem is not the weapon. The problem is the condition of the individual’s heart. The reason they fail to see this is because their hearts are every bit as perverse as the hearts of those carrying out mass murders.

I started this article quoting a verse from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. He identified murder as being a matter of the heart. “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” (Matthew 5:22, emphasis mine).

Violence in our nation and in the world is increasing at an unprecedented rate, and denying law-abiding citizens their right to self-defense with firearms will not retard the rise. The only thing that can reverse the trend is a healthy dose of the fear of God in every human heart. Considering that the Demoncrats cut God out of their platform and embrace every pagan religion while rejecting Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity, every form of violence, not just gun violence, will continue to increase. Our only real hope is for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to return and reclaim His creation. When He comes, He will rule with a “rod of iron”[8]  He will rule as the true “Prince of Peace.”[9] In the meantime, let us not be intimidated by the Demoncrats into giving up our “assault weapons.”

Notes:


[1]  Romans 1:28; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16

[2]  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault-weapon?s=t

[3]  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/weapon?s=t

[4]  Ibid.

[5]  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault?s=t

[6]  Ibid.

[7]  https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

[8]  Revelation 19:5

[9]  Isaiah 9:6

2 Comments

Filed under Current Events, End Times, Politics, Random Musings, Second Coming of Christ

Some Shade of Brown

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; (Acts 17:26)

Recently, a deacon brother and I were discussing the Hispanic ministry of our church. He mentioned that there were several married couples from different South American countries. For example, the wife might be from Venezuela and the husband from Peru. I asked if there were any in the country illegally, and he said that most members of our Hispanic mission were here legally, but some were not. I commented on how sad it would be if married couples from different South American countries were here illegally and got deported, each to their country of origin. Worse yet, what if they had children born here in the United States? How tragic that would be! Talk about breaking up of families!

Our hearts ache for those caught in that situation. We sympathize as we think about our own families and consider how we would feel if we were torn away from our loved ones. However, that happens thousands of times a day. Families are torn apart daily through imprisonments, divorce, death, and deportation. Yet deportation of illegal aliens, a.k.a., “undocumented immigrants,” seems to garner all the headlines.

The Demoncrat (misspelled on purpose) Party labels President Trump as a racist for wanting to build a barrier to abate the influx of illegal entries through our southern border. In doing so, they hope to incite the American Hispanic population to action against the President. The ultimate goal of their nefarious scheme is to “import” a throng of needy people, provide them with housing, healthcare, education (i.e., indoctrination), and basic income in order to raise a generation of loyal voters for the Demoncrat Party. Using a certain class of people for one’s own gain seems more racist than Donald J. Trump wanting to build a border wall for the purpose of national security. Of the top ten countries of origin for illegal aliens, Mexico provides over 50% of the invaders.[1] However, Mexico is not a “race;” it is a nation, and, like the United States, its population is composed of people from all over the world – Europe, Asia, Africa, and “Native Americans.” All Mexicans, like Americans, are some shade of brown.

The claim that securing our southern border is racist is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is not only Mexicans that violate our sovereign border. Many come from nations hostile to the United States, and it just so happens that the porous border between the United States and Mexico provides the path of least resistance.

The Demoncrat may consider that point and suggest that a border wall is racist because it presents an attempt to prevent “people of color” from entering the United States. I get so sick of anyone using the “race card” to bludgeon any opponent for any perceived offense. It does not matter what the conflict, when reason and logic fail, play the race card.

I was mildly amused earlier this week when Speaker Pelosi attempted to reign in her maverick freshmen congressmen (women) for making controversial “tweets.”[2] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) immediately accused the Speaker of racism for picking on the four young women “of color.” What I find amusing is that the race card is the Demoncrats’ favorite weapon to wield against their opponents and here AOC employs it against her boss! It’s funny!

Alright! Let’s stop all of this right now! All God’s chil’en are “of color.” First of all, white is the reflection of all colors of the light spectrum. Black is the absorption of all colors and the reflection of none. In other words, black is no color at all. Secondly, no human, not even an albino, is perfectly white; neither does the human exist that is perfectly black. All humans bear the color of the dust from which we were formed.[3]

All humans are some shade of brown. There exists only one race – the human race. The Bible recognizes nations, people, and tongues from the time God scattered the people throughout the earth from the Tower of Babel,[4] He set the boundaries of their habitation. Borders are God’s idea, and God is not racist.

Any time man goes against God’s design, tragedy follows. People within their borders develop their own cultures, their own way of looking at the world, and their own physical features. However, when they breach their borders and encroach upon foreign lands, they will experience conflict with the culture of the land which they invaded. To flourish in the new land, they must assimilate with the new culture or isolate themselves and remain in conflict. The latter benefits neither the immigrant nor the land to which they immigrate.

Historically, the United States has welcomed immigrants from other lands. Every American’s roots extend to other lands. Even “Native Americans” (I hate that term) migrated to this land from elsewhere, so, really, they have no special claim. What makes Americans American is the common culture that we share. Every immigrant from the past carried the desire with them to become American. If they wanted to remain British, Irish, French, Italian, Japanese, or what-have-you, they would have remained in their country of origin. But they came to America, learned American English, adopted the American way of dress, and accepted American music. They blended into the American culture and the United States became the “melting pot” of the world.

No more! People come here from all over the world seeking “asylum” yet refusing to give up their ties to the “old world.” They isolate themselves in communities of like culture. They continue to dress like they did in the countries from which they came. Many reject the American way of life and American law and insist that their law, regardless of how oppressive, be respected and followed even insisting that the American culture conform to accommodate theirs. These do not want to be American, they only want to live in America and reap the benefits.

If I am offended by them, it is not because their skin is browner than mine. I am offended because they reject my country, and they find my God offensive. That is not racism. If anything, it is nationalism. President Trump is a nationalist, not a racist.

The Demoncrats favor open borders. Their interest is not for the nation. They favor the fragmentation of our culture and society. They pit one ethnic group against another. They strive for division – black against white, poor against rich, law against the lawless. Their goal is to make the United States of America the Divided States of America, and when they achieve that goal, they will be positioned to rule. It is the Socialist/Communist strategy to gain totalitarian control.

Circling back to the issue of illegal aliens and the breakup of families due to deportation, there was a news story this week about an illegal alien pleading her case before Congress. This woman, who testified in Spanish before Congress, was being deported due to her illegal status. She resided in this country illegally for several years. She married an American man and had several children by him born here in the United States. Now she was caught and pleaded for mercy. I apologize for my lack of sympathy, but she broke our law by entering illegally. I do not know if she crossed our southern border illegally or overstayed her visa, either way, she broke the law. She attempted to circumvent the law by marrying an American man and giving birth to his children in the United States. In all that time, she did not attempt to gain legal status (options do exist for such cases), nor did she bother to learn the language. Now she is being deported and expects special pleading. She broke the law!

Demoncrats take advantage of cases like this to play on our emotions. However, emotions should not play a part in situations such as this. At one extreme, our country would be overrun with “asylum seekers” because we pity their desperate state. At the other extreme, violence could erupt from vigilante groups taking the law into their own hands to defend our borders.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. The law must be upheld without prejudice and without emotion. If the law is flawed then the law should be changed, but in the meantime, it must be upheld. The Demoncrats that advocate for open borders, rather than wasting time litigating against the President, should spend their time rectifying the immigration issue in a way that suits them. But they are hypocrites. They do not want to change the law; they just want to prevent the President from enforcing it.

My father came into this country illegally from Mexico under an assumed name at the age of 18. He met and married my mother and became a Christian. About the time I came along his conscience started to bother him knowing that as a Christian he was responsible to obey the laws of man as well as the laws of God.[5] He returned to Mexico and served two years in the Mexican army to fulfill his obligation to that country. In the meantime, he worked on gaining legal entry into the United States. For years he carried a “green card” and diligently kept his status current. He finally became a citizen late in life. On return from one of our trips to Mexico, I can still recall the smile on my father’s face and the pride in his voice when he answered, “American citizen” to the Border Patrol officer at the crossing. He was not Mexican anymore. He was, “American citizen!” Even before that, my father stood with pride at the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and the playing of our National Anthem, and he would slap us on the back of the head if we forgot to remove our cap when the American flag passed by during a parade.

So, I find it very difficult to sympathize with illegal invaders who suffer the consequences of their lawbreaking. There is a thing called responsibility, and all rational adults should understand what that word entails. I also find it very difficult to sympathize with illegal invaders who protest our immigration laws while trampling the American flag and waving the flag of their country of origin. It has nothing to do with race. It IS all about nationalism, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is no black or white. We are all some shade of brown and we are all created in God’s image.[6] But if you hate America and everything for which America stands, please do us all a favor and go back to the homeland you love so much. If you want to stay in America, then get to know and love America. Learn her real history, her form of government, her language, and her culture. Be an American.

Notes:


[1]  “Demographics of Immigrants in the United States Illegally” – https://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

[2]  “Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez clash drags on, threatening Democratic unity” – https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/11/nancy-pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-feud-1407292

[3]  Genesis 2:7

[4]  Genesis 11:1-9

[5]  Romans 13:1-7

[6]  Genesis 1:26-27

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Current Events, Politics, Random Musings, Theology

Purim And 2A

Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey, Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar. (Esther 8:11-12)

Just this week, the Jews celebrated the ancient feast of Purim.[1] Purim is not one of the “Feasts of the Lord” given by God in Leviticus 23. It is a celebration instituted by Jews in commemoration of their salvation from extermination under Persian rule.

Some have questioned whether the Book of Esther belongs in the canon of the Bible because the name of God, in any of its various forms, does not appear anywhere in the book. However, when one reads this account, the unmistakable hand of God is seen working throughout the narrative.

For those unfamiliar with this historical account[2], King Ahasuerus of Persia, became annoyed with his queen Vashti when she refused to dance for his drinking buddies and he removed her from being queen, i.e., he divorced her. The law of the Medes and the Persians was such that when a law was decreed by the king, it could not be rescinded.[3] When Ahasuerus sobered up, he regretted his decision, but the deed was done and could not be undone.

Kings get lonely without a wife and Vashti was gone now. What was the king to do? His servants suggested that Ahasuerus hold a beauty pageant of all the most beautiful virgins of the realm the winner of which would become the new queen. In short, Esther (a.k.a., Hadassah), a Jewess and cousin of Mordecai, who was in the service of the king,[4] was chosen and became the new queen of Persia. The king was unaware of their relationship nor did he know Esther’s ethnicity. As he “sat in the king’s gate” carrying out his duties, Mordecai overheard a plot to kill the king. He relayed the information to Esther who informed the king, and the two would-be assassins were hanged for their treason.

Later, King Ahasuerus promoted a Jew-hater by the name of Haman to a high position. Haman was rather full of himself, and when Mordecai refused to bow down to him – no God-fearing Jew would ever bow down to a mere man – he concocted a plot kill all the Jews in the realm. He convinced the king that all the Jews throughout the kingdom should be killed because they followed their own law and did not submit to the king’s law, i.e. to bow down to Haman. So it was decreed that all the Jews throughout the kingdom would be killed the following year on Adar 13.[5]

When Mordecai heard of the decree, he “rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and a bitter cry” (Esther 4:1). Mordecai pleaded with Esther to go before the king and intercede for her people, but because of palace protocol, Esther could not go before the king without being summoned.

In the meantime, Ahasuerus had trouble sleeping one night and stayed up reading court records. (That should put anyone to sleep!) There he found the record of Mordecai exposing the assassination plot against him that had gone unrewarded. So he summoned his top advisor, Hamon (who just happened to be hanging around looking for some excuse to send Mordecai to the gallows), to determine how to reward someone who had done something very special for the king. Since Ahasuerus did not name the beneficiary, Haman assumed the king was speaking of him.

And Haman answered the king, For the man whom the king delighteth to honour, Let the royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear, and the horse that the king rideth upon, and the crown royal which is set upon his head: And let this apparel and horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king’s most noble princes, that they may array the man withal whom the king delighteth to honour, and bring him on horseback through the street of the city, and proclaim before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honour” (Esther 6:7-9).

That was just the thing only a narcissist like Haman could appreciate, but the joke was on him when Ahasuerus instructed him to do that very thing for Mordicai.[6] As any humble man might do, Mordecai graciously accepted the accolade, but quietly returned back to his post at the king’s gate. “But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered” (Esther 6:13).

The prior day, Esther invited the king and Haman to a banquet she had prepared in her chambers.[7] At the banquet, Esther revealed that she was a Jewess and her people, the Jews had been targeted for slaughter by “this wicked Haman” (Esther 7:6). This angered the king and he ordered that Haman be hanged on the very gallows he constructed for hanging Mordecai. However, because the law could not be abrogated,[8] Ahasuerus authorized Mordecai to write a subsequent law that would allow the Jews to take up arms and defend themselves against anyone who would do them harm.

When Adar (February/March) 13 arrived, when the first law took effect, the Jews met their assailants with equal force. The Jews kill several thousand of their attackers, and Esther records no losses on the part of the Jews. Since the law was instituted to take effect only on that one day, the Jews were safe afterward. “On the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same rested they, and made it a day of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:17).

“And Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both nigh and far, To stablish this among them, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same, yearly” (Esther 9:20-21). So was the Feast of Purim established.

So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment (2A) of the United States Constitution? We learn from this account in Esther that an armed populous can defend itself against those who would do them harm or violence. A well established historical fact teaches (for those with the ability to learn) that the first thing a tyrannical government does to subjugate the people is to disarm them. An unarmed populace cannot defend itself against tyranny nor even effectively protest – take Venezuela for example. Take note of the socialist-leaning Democrat Party in the USA and their incessant drumbeat for “gun control.” They are not interested in “gun control.” Most of the leftist elites surround themselves with armed bodyguards and hide behind high walls designed to keep out unwanted invaders. Their main interest is to disarm the populous so that they can control and exercise power over the people. The Second Amendment prevents them from doing that. So whenever some heinous crime takes place involving a firearm of any kind – even if that crime takes place in New Zealand – the cries for stricter gun laws increase in frequency and amplitude.

The One who said, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39), also said, “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The Second Amendment is our Purim.

Notes:


[1]  Purim (plural) comes from “Pur” meaning “a lot (as by means of a broken piece)” See Esther 3:7; 9:24, 26.

[2]  This synopsis omits many important details. For a better appreciation of the account, the reader should read the entire book of Esther. It is only 10 short chapters!

[3]  Esther 1:19

[4]  Esther 2:19, 21

[5]  Esther 3:13

[6]  Esther 6:10-11

[7]  Esther 5:1-8

[8]  Esther 8:8

5 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Current Events, Holidays, Politics, Theology

The Immorality of a Wall

And Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed, and there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build the wall. (Nehemiah 4:10)

The partial government shutdown continues beyond the third week. Some say that this is the longest shutdown in government history, yet, outside of a small percentage of government employees, the shutdown fails to have the chaotic effect that the main-stream media (MSM) purport. Many conscientious government employees remain at their posts even though they have not received a paycheck. (That is what I call dedication, and they ought to be commended for it.) While their pay may be temporarily delayed, they will receive their full back-pay eventually when this government impasse is breached.

The cause of the impasse is absurd. The House of Representatives wants to submit a spending plan for President Trump sign. President Trump will not sign the spending plan because it does not include the $5.6 billion he has requested to build a wall on our southern border. Democrats and Republicans both agree that a wall is needed; however, Democrats, because it is Donald Trump making the request, refuse to allocate the money for wall construction to deny Trump from keeping a campaign promise. It has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the matter. It has everything to with who wins the argument, and the Democrats (I call them Demoncrats for a reason) want to win, regardless of whether the border wall is good for the nation or whether thousands of government employees get paid or not. (Note: Congressmen have not missed a paycheck. If any wall is immoral, it is this one erected by the Demoncrats.)

Democrats stoke up the media to incite sympathy for unpaid government employees while they take off on vacations to exotic places, and meet with lobbyists in Puerto Rico rather than sit with the President to hammer out this impasse. They accuse President Trump of inflexibility, yet they have refused any offer of compromise by the President. In his last meeting with Democrat leadership, President Trump asked Speaker Pelosi, “Okay, Nancy, if I open up the government in 30 days, could we have border security?” She said, “Not at all.”[1]

President Trump will not budge on his demand for border security that includes a solid barrier of some kind. He has offered concessions such as legalizing so-called “dreamers,” whom Democrats claim to champion. However, because yielding on the wall gives President Trump an optical victory, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to give sway on the matter regardless of the shutdown, regardless of the unpaid government employees, regardless that she has favored the wall in the past, regardless that it is a matter of national security and sovereignty, and regardless that it is the right thing to do. She defends her obstinate stance by claiming that “the wall is an immorality.”

The wall is an immorality! How so? On what, other than the imaginations of a deluded mind, does she base that claim? In a world of relativism, morality amounts to individual preference. It becomes subjective so that “your truth is not my truth” and in a nation of over 300 million people that makes for mass confusion and anarchy. I prefer the objective truth of God’s Word.

Since morality comes from God, and because God created humans in His image,[2] humans are naturally moral creatures. However, that morality has been corrupted,[3] and what is true for Nancy Pelosi may not be true at all. We need an objective standard for morality. God, as our Creator, provided us with His operating manual as the standard of morality – the Bible. Does the Bible address the question of the morality or immorality of a wall? Indeed it does.

Before getting into the Word, what is the purpose of a wall, barrier or fence? One of the definitions for a wall is a “rampart” or a “bulwark,” which is any protection against external danger, injury or annoyance. A wall or bulwark protects those within from danger from without. Walls prevent invasion from outside forces that would harm those behind the wall.

I have a seven-foot fence in my back yard. It may not prevent an intruder climbing over, but it will certainly cost him (I assume intruders will be male) great effort and hopefully alert the dogs before he can break into my house. Otherwise, I hope the fence will discourage the attempt in the first place. The front of my house is open to the street. Without a fence to protect my front door, I feel vulnerable to attack from that side. (I speak from a human perspective; however, I place my trust in God for our protection. I do my part and let Him take care of those things which are out of my control.)

I heard someone say, “I have a fence not because I hate the people outside, but because I love the people inside.” Fences, and walls, while not perfect, give us a measure of protection. Nancy Pelosi’s estate has a wall around it. Barack Obama, the Clintons, Bernie Sanders as well as most other Democrats live behind tall barriers to keep out the riffraff. Are their walls an “immorality”? No sane person would make such a claim; therefore, Nancy Pelosi’s claim is either delusional or hypocritical.

The Bible talks about walls. In Bible times, walls presented the first line of defense for the city (they do today also). Entry into a walled city was through the city gates. Anyone having business within the city walls entered through the massive, heavy gates (the “ports of entry”). When the gates were closed, no one entered or left the city. When invading armies came against the city, they would have either to scale the heavily defended walls, break down the gates, or lay siege to the city. Conquering a walled city often took several years to accomplish. Those living in the unwalled villages were easy prey. If they could not escape to the protection of a nearby, fortified city, they fell victim to the enemy. Walls, for those protected by them, were moral, not immoral.

The Bible has 247 occurrences in 223 verses of “wall” or “walls.” When Israel entered the Promised Land, “All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many” (Deuteronomy 3:5). The first walled city they faced was Jericho, and it took an act of God to breach that wall.[4] David conquered the walled city of Jebus (Jerusalem)[5] by entering the city through a water conduit (“gutter”).[6], [7] Later, his son Solomon reinforced and expanded the walls of Jerusalem.[8] During his reign, Solomon fortified other cities throughout Israel.[9]

We have already seen that walls are not 100% effective; they can be penetrated,[10] and when a wall is broken down, it must be repaired.[11] Broken walls are distressing for those depending on them for protection,[12] and their restoration is cause for celebration.[13] For those inside, walls provide security.[14] For those outside, walls present an obstacle to overcome, and they are not appreciated.[15]

God approves of walls.[16] The idea of borders and nations was His in the first place.[17] God created the nations[18] and established their boundaries.[19] Borders are not offensive to God; neither is the defense of those borders; therefore walls are not “an immorality” as Speaker Pelosi proclaims. If anything, breaching a wall is immoral and cause for war – a war initiated by the invader. In the world in which we live, we need walls, and those walls must be respected.

One day soon, the need for walls will cease,[20] except for the wall around the New Jerusalem whose walls will exclude no one. That wall will serve to set that city apart as a very special place.[21] However, for the present, for everyone who names the name of Christ, no matter what national or ethnic origin, “… he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us” (Ephesians 2:14). Outside of that, “Build the Wall!”

Notes:


[1]  “House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy reacts to President Trump’s latest comments on fixing the border crisis

[2]  Genesis 1:26-27

[3]  Genesis 3

[4]  Joshua 6

[5]  1 Chronicles 11:4

[6]  2 Samuel 5:8

[7]Did King David Conquer Jerusalem Using This Tunnel?

[8]  1 Kings 3:1

[9] 1 Kings 9:15; 2 Chronicles 8:5; 14:7

[10]  2 Chronicles 25:23; 26:6; 36:19

[11]  2 Chronicles 32:5; Jeremiah 52:14

[12]  Nehemiah 1:3; 2:17

[13]  Nehemiah 12:27, 30

[14] Psalm 122:7; Proverbs 18:11; 25:28; Ezekiel 38:11

[15]  Ezra 4:12-16; Nehemiah 4:3

[16]  Ezra 9:9; Psalm 51:18

[17]  Genesis 11:8-9

[18]  Genesis 10

[19]  Deuteronomy 32:8; Acts 17:26

[20]  Isaiah 26:1; 60:18; Zechariah 2:4-5

[21]  Revelation 21

10 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Current Events, Philosophy, Politics, Second Coming of Christ, Theology

The Borg

We are the Borg. Lower your shields.

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:14-20)

When the Children of Israel entered the Promised Land, God gave them a theocratic system of government where judges settled domestic disputes and raised armies to defend against invading armies. God was their King, and He ruled the Levitical priests who, among other duties, maintained the written law. This system worked well except for the frequent times that the people forgot God and followed after the pagan gods that infested their land. At those times, God would send invaders into their land to oppress the people until they repented and cried out to God for help. God heard their pleas and would raise up judges to deliver them from their oppressors, then the cycle would begin again. This cycle went on for more than 400 years until they rejected God as their King and asked God for an earthly king like the kings of the nations around them (1 Samuel 8). God granted their request. “And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands” (1 Samuel 10:19, emphasis mine). Be careful what you ask for.

That they would reject Him came as no surprise to God. Before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, God made provision for the eventuality that they would reject Him as their King, preferring a king in their own image and subject to all their frailties. God gave them guidelines for choosing a king (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). (1.) The king would be chosen by God. (2.) The king chosen would be “a brother” (or “citizen”) of their nation. There were not to select a “stranger” (foreigner) to be king over them. (3.) The king should not enrich himself from his position. (4.) The king should not return the people to slavery (Egypt). (5.) The king should not “multiply wives to himself,” i.e., not be a womanizer. King David, their first real king (chosen by God), failed on this point even to the point of committing murder to secure a wife. His son, Solomon, surpassed his father in this respect a thousandfold. (6.) God required the king to copy the entire Law (the Pentateuch) by hand. (7.) This copy, certified by the priests, would remain with the king for his use in governing. He, though a king, would be subject to, not above, the Law. The Law served “that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left” (Deuteronomy 17:19-20).

We do not have a king in the United States of America. To a certain extent, “We the People” govern our affairs. We are not a theocracy. As days go by, that becomes more and more painfully obvious. We are not governed by judges, although that too seems to be falling by the wayside and not for the better. Nor are we a pure democracy. The majority is often wrong, and mob rule leads to anarchy. Jesus said, “wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat” (Matthew 7:13). Our nation is a Democratic Republic, founded on the rule of Law – the Constitution. We elect representatives that are supposed to represent our interests in Congress. The Seventeenth Amendment abridged Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution making it so that Senators are now elected by popular vote within the states, whereas before they were selected by the state legislatures. In my view, the 17th Amendment was a bad idea as it weakens federalism by taking away the power that rightfully belongs to the states. The states effectively have no representation in Congress now.

Our President is elected by the electoral college. “We the People” cast our vote for our preferred presidential candidate, however, what we really vote for are the electors that will vote for the President. Each state is assigned a number of electors based on the number of representatives they have in Congress. The state party conventions select the electors, and, ideally, they vote according to the will of their constituents. This method results in a point of contention when the national popular vote for a particular candidate exceeds the vote of the electoral college. However, the system is fair because it balances out the wishes from heavily populated areas with the wishes of less populated areas. I realize that is a rather simplistic explanation, but my objective here is not to give a civics lesson.

In 2016 we had a presidential election. Hillary Clinton arguably won the popular vote by a small majority, and Donald J. Trump won the electoral college by a significant majority and thereby won the presidency of the United States. For this reason, the Demoncrats (the misspelling is on purpose) refuse to acknowledge him a President and do all they can to obstruct him in every way imaginable. (I will spare you the details.) If you are halfway paying attention to current events, you are aware of all the shenanigans of the Demoncrats and “their” media. They will do everything in their power to destroy the Trump presidency – falsely accuse him of Russian collusion, threaten him with impeachment without cause, accuse him of racism because he wants to protect our borders, accuse him of dividing the country while they openly incite violence against his staff and anyone who supports him. Demoncrats!

Last week, November 6, 2018, we had mid-term elections. The “blue wave” predicted by the Demoncrats barely made a splash; however, the Demoncrats managed to secure a slight, 35-seat majority in the House. My own Representative, Pete Sessions, for whom I voted even though he is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) lost his seat (deservedly) to Demoncrat, Colin Allred. I console myself knowing that if he fails to represent our district well, we can vote him out in two years, but I am willing to give him a chance.

I think of myself as an Independent voter. However, I generally vote a straight Republican ticket. I simply cannot stomach the thought of voting for any Demoncrat, not that Republicans are all that great. The problem with Demoncrats is that they are like The Borg. They legislate as a collective. No allowance for individualism exists within the collective. A Demoncrat politician will make conservative noises on the campaign trail, but once assimilated into the collective, “resistance is futile.” They must vote with the collective – The Borg.

Republicans are not like that. Much to my chagrin, Republicans often feud among themselves, and many of them end up voting with The Borg. Not so The Borg, they always stick together, right or wrong. They will vote lockstep; they dare not resist the collective. That would not be so bad if the collective behaved righteously, but they do not. Demoncrats, a.k.a. The Borg, do not diverge from their platform. Genuine, born-again Christians need to consider the platform of the Demoncrat Party. At the 2012 meeting of the Democrat National Convention (DNC), the Demoncrat Party officially removed “God” from their party platform. Think about that!

The Demoncrat Party is Godless. It supports infanticide in the form of abortion and calls it a woman’s reproductive right. The Demoncrat Party encourages all manner of sexual perversion and demonizes any voice that calls it “sin” (Romans 1:32). The Demoncrat Party tolerates all religions and defends Islam, but labels Evangelical Christians as bigots, haters, and terrorists. The Demoncrat party defends the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech as long as that speech complies with their standard of political correctness which is constantly evolving. The Demoncrat Party rejects the Second Amendment and a citizen’s right to own and bear arms while they surround themselves with armed bodyguards and sequester themselves in gated communities. The Demoncrat Party supports protecting our borders until President Trump takes steps to actually erect barriers to prevent illegal immigration. For that, they call him a racist, a bigot, and a Nazi. The Demoncrat Party would decimate our military which serves the constitutional function of protecting our nation in order to fund their socialist agenda of redistributing wealth, which is not a function of government and not supported by the Constitution.

Need I go on? The problem is not that there is a difference of opinion. The problem with the Demoncrat Party is that of an unyielding, unrelenting ideology that cannot tolerate any opposing view. The Bible perfectly describes this condition. “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools … And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (Romans 1:21-22, 28, emphasis mine). The condition of a “reprobate mind” is one that cannot reason properly, and therein lies the problem. To exacerbate the problem, they act and vote as a block. They are The Borg! If there is anything to be admired in the Demoncrat Party is their solidarity and ability to maintain their unity. However, armed with that understanding, the Christian must consider the implications of casting a vote for any Demoncrat. As individuals, they may be fine, upstanding people, but once assimilated into the collective, they vote as a block, and their votes are generally unbiblical and un-Christian.

One final thought, as Christians, we understand that God is ultimately in control of governments and that “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). God will accomplish His will in the world, but while He has us here, we need to do our part to resist evil at all cost. That includes resisting The Borg!

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Current Events, Politics, Random Musings, Theology

O Beautiful!

Mayflower Compact, Signed November 11, 1620

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. (Psalm 33:12)

President Obama insulted American Christians when he proclaimed to the world that America was not a Christian nation. He went on to announce that America was just as much of a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religion of your choice nation. Christians rightly protested (without violence or destruction of public and private property) that America was indeed a Christian nation as enshrined in our founding documents.

Before setting foot on their “promised land” on November 11, 1620, the Pilgrims covenanted together “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith” to “combine” themselves “together into a civil body politic.” The Mayflower Compact later influenced the freedom pact declaring our nation’s independence on July 4, 1776, assuming “among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” The declaration went on to assert, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” After a long list of grievances, they made their appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the World” declaring their “firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence,” i.e., God.

The reliance on Divine Providence prompted the founders to include in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, the First Amendment protecting freedom of religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The amendment also guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press and “the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This First Amendment (and the Second that secures it) is under assault on many fronts. A plain reading of the text makes it clear that the government cannot impose one religion over another. At the same time, the government cannot prohibit the free practice of a citizen’s religion. Conspicuously, no restrictions exist on the exercise of religious practice – no restriction for the free practice in public, public schools, public buildings, public events, or any other such restrictions. However, put up a Nativity Scene in the public square, or the Ten Commandments at the county courthouse or on the wall of a public school, or offer a prayer at the start of a high school sports activity, and the ACLU will be out in full force looking for someone to sue. On what grounds? The ACLU will argue that such religious activity violates the “separation of church and state,” a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution. With the aid of unscrupulous judges, the ACLU intimidates victims without the resources to fight the litigation so that they give up without a fight. Slowly, the ACLU has eroded away the concept of religious liberty.

Now, legislation in various states, California in particular, slowly chips away at what remains of the First Amendment by declaring that any denunciation of sodomites is “hate speech” and therefore illegal. That destroys free speech. It destroys freedom of the press, which might even make the Bible illegal because it has much to say about deviant sex acts. It could follow that the freedom to peaceably assemble in a church that teaches against sodomy will be declared illegal, and forget about petitioning the government over such a grievance. There goes the First Amendment. Without the Second Amendment, which is systematically being picked apart, how can the First Amendment be defended?

Barack Obama was right. Whatever America used to be, it is no longer a Christian nation. I hear many Christians express optimism that we can turn around this nation. Many hope for national revival (2 Chronicles 7:14 – taken way out of context). I must admit, I do not share that optimism. That ship has sailed. America is no longer a Christian nation, and it will never again be a Christian nation. Christians – genuine, born-again, Bible-believing, evangelical Christians – in America are rapidly becoming the “remnant.” We can voice our complaints until our tonsils bleed, and nothing will change, except perhaps for the worst.

I do not mean to be a Gloomy Gus, nor do I want to be a Pollyanna. I want to be realistic, and I want to be biblical. While the Bible teaches that we are to submit to our governing authorities (Romans 13:1-8) and that we should pray our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-4), we must recognize that our primary citizenship is not of this world, but the kingdom of Jesus Christ. “For our [citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). In His high priestly prayer, Jesus affirmed, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16). While America is not “the beautiful,” innocent virgin she once was, we who have placed our trust in Christ, are children of the King, (John 1:12) and citizens of His realm. While we remain and while He delays His return, we must turn our focus and our efforts to His Kingdom. The things of this earth, including America the Beautiful, are passing away (1 John 2:17), but His Kingdom will last forever (Luke 1:33). “When ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors” (Mark 13:29).

O, Beautiful! I lament your demise, but I rejoice knowing that the Lord will soon return, and He will truly make America great again – better than ever! Not only America, but His reign on earth will make the whole earth better than before. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Current Events, End Times, Holidays, Politics, Religion, Second Coming of Christ

Operation Condor – How NSA Director Mike Rogers Saved The U.S. From a Massive Constitutional Crisis… | The Last Refuge

Source: Operation Condor – How NSA Director Mike Rogers Saved The U.S. From a Massive Constitutional Crisis… | The Last Refuge

Just look at the tangled web woven by the Demoncrat “deep state”!

This is a very long and very detailed article, but well worth your time to read. The “swamp” runs deep and it is murky and stinks!

2 Comments

Filed under Current Events, Politics