The much anticipated Democrat debate aired at 8:30am here in the Philippines so I adjusted my schedule to stay home and watch it. I probably didn't need to waste my time, except that I was curious to see if there would be any attempt to take down Hillary. There wasn't. In fact, there wasn't anything really unexpected in the two-and-a-half hour socialist love fest. It was almost a race to see who could promise to give away more: free college tuition, paid maternity leave, and Obamacare for illegal immigrants. Coldly missing from all their promises was anything for veterans.
The location for the debate, Las Vegas, Nevada, the gambling mecca of the world, seemed appropriate. In Las Vegas people put their entire lives on the line over a throw of the dice. They gamble away hard earned dollars hoping beyond hope for one lucky jackpot that will change their lives, and the vast majority go away disappointed and empty-handed.
It's like voting for a Democrat. The candidates promise the world with no specific plan on how to get it other than class warfare, make the wealthy pay. The liberal argument is always give it enough time and it will happen, like evolution. The facts are that socialism has been given enough time and the track record is that it has never worked anywhere in the world, and is not working under Obama's imperial usurpation of unconstitutional power. The roll of the dice on another Democrat president with the same agenda and disregard for the Constitution as Obama is a fool's wager.
I will say that Anderson Cooper did a good job moderating the debate. He kept it moving with machine-gun quick questions so that the discussion never stalled, but it was more of another powder-puff liberal interview for the candidates than a debate. Cooper's first question to Hillary challenged her flip-flopping on issues and asked if she would say anything to get elected. Her answer was that she has always been consistent on her principles but has learned and adjusted. Cooper pressed her on whether she is a progressive or a moderate. She is definitely a progressive, she answered. "I can get it done," she said emphatically.
That was the last tough question anybody was asked the entire evening. The debate then became a "same ol' same ol" regurgitation of Democrat socialist ideas and issues of minor or meaningless importance. One constant theme was an attack on Republicans for being obstructionists. Climate change appeared to be the most important issue for Sanders, although they all chimed in on it. Black lives matter over all lives matter was a softball for the African-American community. Three chimed in for black lives, Webb said all lives, and Hillary never answered the question. While Hillary made vague attempts to distance herself from Obama they all praised him and gave him their support.
They had nothing new on the economy. After seven years of the slowest economic recovery in history brought on by a recession caused by a Democrat controlled Congress, the Democrat candidates are still blaming President Bush. They all seemed to be in a race to see who could be the biggest Santa Claus and give away the most while leveling the playing field to make it fair for the middle class.
Sanders complained that we have the highest rate of child poverty in the world and the only country without universal healthcare. He pumped class warfare by calling for a groundswell movement to get everyone out to vote (the same type of movement as the Tea Party which Democrats excoriate) in order to defeat billionaires. But all of his attacks and those of the others about the inequality of the middle class are indictments against the Democrats and their failed policies. After seven years of Obama we still have the highest child poverty rate? What has Obama been doing about it? Where did he go wrong? We're still the only country without universal healthcare or paid maternity leave? What happened to Obamacare? It was supposed to fix that.
You might notice also that all the class warfare attacks were against billionaires, not millionaires. Of course, that might be because Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were "broke" when they left the White House according to Hillary, made 25 million dollars last year. If any of them are serious about class warfare, they ought to give away their own fortunes to pay down the national debt.
In the end their positions on the economy were very "Trumpish." The Democrats have all attacked Donald Trump for his bully-boy boasting but lack of specifics. But that's just what we saw in the debate. A lot of talk about massive giveaways but no specifics on how it will be done.
Of the five candidates only two are seriously running for president. The others were only there to make it look like a wide field of choices. Lincoln Chaffee provided comic relief, standing tall and looking like a throwback to the early 1800s. At least twice he pointed out that in thirty years of public service he never had a scandal attached to his name. He didn't get any traction.
James Webb was the most conservative candidate. He also was given the least amount of time in the debate which he complained about several times. He constantly referred to his military service and his son's service, for which he should be applauded, but he was stiff, inarticulate, and looked like he had a hard time expressing himself. Martin O'Malley was the strongest of the three lower tier candidates, but the debate was all about Sanders and Hillary. Sanders had an angry demeanor the entire evening in contrast to Hillary who had a smile almost plastered on her face.
They had slightly differing opinions on gun control but the only one opposed to it was Webb. He is for background checks but believes people need the ability to defend themselves. Chaffee said he believes in the Second Amendment but they have to find a common ground to address the issue.
On Russia in Syria Hillary blamed the deteriorating situation on Putin and said that our warplanes flying in Syria give us leverage to negotiate with Russia. She also boasted that she had been in the situation room. The question that begs to be asked and wasn't, is that since we already had warplanes flying in Syria why didn't that give us leverage to keep the Russians out? And what good is it to have been in the situation room if all you've learned from the experience is how to retreat and disengage yourself from the world?
Sanders went on a tirade saying the Iraq war was the worst policy in US history, called it a quagmire and said he would get us out. On Syria he tacitly supported Obama saying that Russia's economy would force them to leave. Chaffee proudly acknowledged that he was the only one in the Senate who voted against the Iraq war. O'Malley attacked Bush and supported Obama's policy on Syria.
Webb said Russia is in Syria because Iraq became destabilized. He went on to criticize Obama for the Arab Spring that allowed terrorists to ruin North Africa, and pointed out the greater threat right now is China's aggression in the South China Sea. He made an important point that everyone in the western world seems to be ignoring. China is a serious threat to Southeast Asia. Webb was the only one to get it right.
Hillary challenged Webb on Libya saying that Europe was begging the US to get involved in overthrowing Khadaffi who was murdering Americans. Webb argued that it was not so urgent that Obama couldn't have come to Congress first for a constitutional authorization to act. Hillary defended the action by saying Libya had its first free elections since 1951. Webb countered that Libya was no threat to us, and that now their situation is much worse than it was under Khadaffi. It was the sharpest exchange of the evening and Webb was right again.
O'Malley tried to bring up Benghazi but nobody would bite and the issue went away. But that was typical of the entire debate. It seemed to be protect Hillary night rather than debate real issues. Sanders from the start defiantly declared he was sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mails. That brought applause and a thank you from Hillary, but it was a stupid move for Sanders if he is serious about winning the nomination. He just took away one of his most powerful debating tools. If it's important enough for the FBI to be investigating, it must be important enough to be discussed.
But this was corral the wagons around Hillary. There was no discussion of any difficult issues that would put her on the spot. Benghazi, ISIS, Planned Parenthood and the e-mail scandal were ignored, and when Hillary boasted of turning over 55,000 e-mails nobody challenged her on the 30,000 e-mails she had deleted or the amateur server she was using, or the lies she told about no classified materials being sent.
On illegal immigration they all supported a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Clinton blasted the Republicans for "demonizing immigrants," and said she would go further than Obama has with executive orders. Webb at least said we need to define our borders, and O'Malley called Trump a "carnival barker."
After an hour and a half the debate became tedious and boring, but I lingered on till the end. Most of it was big government socialist ideology with Webb, the only one to challenge some of the Democrat norms, getting the least amount of time. There seemed to be a concerted attempt to accuse Republicans of being for bigger government, all the while ignoring that all the socialist giveaways they promised throughout the evening would expand government bigger than it has ever been.
When asked what they would do different so as not to be an Obama third term, the four men all gave a one point short comment, but the only difference Hillary gave was that she would be the first woman president. She then said she would build and go beyond what Obama has done. She also slipped in one comment about a woman's right to choose which brought the longest and loudest applause of the evening from the audience.
In the end the debate was really only face time for Sanders and Hillary. Chaffee and Webb were all but ignored. O'Malley was given more time and he asserted himself well when he had his chances, but he's going no where. The focus of the debate was on Sanders and Hillary, but rather than point out their differences they essentially patted each other on the back and held the same or similar positions on nearly every subject.
Sanders certainly didn't help himself and Hillary didn't hurt herself, so if there's a winner I would say it would have to be Hillary. If there's a loser I would say it's America if either of them becomes the next president.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Monday, October 12, 2015
Cold War 2
I make no claim to being a prophet but I published a comment July 6, 2009 about Obama's sniveling to then Russian president Medvedev and said, "My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War." Here's the comment:
I've been listening to the speeches Medvedev and BHO have been making after signing another "historic" agreement. What they've agreed to do is to work out a new nuclear arms treaty for our mutual protection, and to have better relations in the future.
This kow-towing Jimmy Carteresque president is back to bowing down to Russia and signing away our security with nuclear arms reductions, and sitting by while Putin lectures him on Russian-American relations. Then when questioned by Fox News' Major Garret, the first interview he's given to a Fox News reporter, he explained his statement about the Cold War being won by many nations by saying the Poles under Lech Walesa and the Czechs under Vaclav Havel had a part to do in it as well.
The truth is those protest movements only succeeded because Ronald Reagan challenged the USSR and gave the protesters moral support. Without it they would never have succeeded, and those movements would have come to nothing. Yes they were small cogs that helped to bring down the Warsaw Pact, and the Berlin Wall was a part of that, but they only succeeded because the Soviets pulled their troops out of Eastern Europe, and that was the result of no one else's efforts but the USA.
Obama doesn't understand history or foreign relations and he's making us extremely vulnerable. My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War.
In the six years since then Obama has retreated from the Middle East, backed down from an ascendant Russia's invasion of the Crimea and Ukraine, backed down from China's threats in the South China Sea, allowed Assad of Syria to cross his red lines with no retaliation, backed Muslim Brotherhood uprisings all over North Africa and Yemen which have all but destroyed any opportunity for freedom or democracy in the region, refused to help U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others while they were killed by terrorists in Libya and blamed it on an unknown anti-Muslim video, allowed the "JV" ISIS to rise to super terrorist status making no response while they brutally behead Christians, and given away the whole store to Iran in nuclear negotiations which were nothing less than a full scale surrender.
And now, after six years of Obama wimpiness, Russia has moved into Syria and a Russian general marched into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and with utter disdain told us to stop flying over Syria. Obama's withdrawal of American influence from the world stage has left a void for the revived evil empire of Vladimir Putin to fill, and he's filling it.
So was I right? Is this Cold War 2 starting? Am I a prophet??? I made another prediction back in early 2012. I wrote that if Obama gets reelected, and if he gets away with dismantling our military and perverting our entire culture (which he is getting away with), that he would manufacture some kind of crisis in order to declare Martial Law and retain power. In that case his overthrow of America would be complete. So what do you think? A year from now will I be two-for-two?
I hope not.
I've been listening to the speeches Medvedev and BHO have been making after signing another "historic" agreement. What they've agreed to do is to work out a new nuclear arms treaty for our mutual protection, and to have better relations in the future.
This kow-towing Jimmy Carteresque president is back to bowing down to Russia and signing away our security with nuclear arms reductions, and sitting by while Putin lectures him on Russian-American relations. Then when questioned by Fox News' Major Garret, the first interview he's given to a Fox News reporter, he explained his statement about the Cold War being won by many nations by saying the Poles under Lech Walesa and the Czechs under Vaclav Havel had a part to do in it as well.
The truth is those protest movements only succeeded because Ronald Reagan challenged the USSR and gave the protesters moral support. Without it they would never have succeeded, and those movements would have come to nothing. Yes they were small cogs that helped to bring down the Warsaw Pact, and the Berlin Wall was a part of that, but they only succeeded because the Soviets pulled their troops out of Eastern Europe, and that was the result of no one else's efforts but the USA.
Obama doesn't understand history or foreign relations and he's making us extremely vulnerable. My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War.
In the six years since then Obama has retreated from the Middle East, backed down from an ascendant Russia's invasion of the Crimea and Ukraine, backed down from China's threats in the South China Sea, allowed Assad of Syria to cross his red lines with no retaliation, backed Muslim Brotherhood uprisings all over North Africa and Yemen which have all but destroyed any opportunity for freedom or democracy in the region, refused to help U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others while they were killed by terrorists in Libya and blamed it on an unknown anti-Muslim video, allowed the "JV" ISIS to rise to super terrorist status making no response while they brutally behead Christians, and given away the whole store to Iran in nuclear negotiations which were nothing less than a full scale surrender.
And now, after six years of Obama wimpiness, Russia has moved into Syria and a Russian general marched into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and with utter disdain told us to stop flying over Syria. Obama's withdrawal of American influence from the world stage has left a void for the revived evil empire of Vladimir Putin to fill, and he's filling it.
So was I right? Is this Cold War 2 starting? Am I a prophet??? I made another prediction back in early 2012. I wrote that if Obama gets reelected, and if he gets away with dismantling our military and perverting our entire culture (which he is getting away with), that he would manufacture some kind of crisis in order to declare Martial Law and retain power. In that case his overthrow of America would be complete. So what do you think? A year from now will I be two-for-two?
I hope not.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Should a Muslim be President
What is overlooked in this debate on whether or not a Muslim should be president is that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution the only religion of any consequence in the country was Christianity. The Christian founders guaranteed freedom of religion to all religions, but they never expected to see a day when Islam or any other non-Christian religion would have been dominant. This is clear in their own writings and comments. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and author of five of The Federalist articles, said that it is the duty of Christians in a Christian nation to elect Christians to the nation's highest offices. The Founders, while granting freedom of worship to all religions, expected that America would be a Christian nation in perpetuity. The reason someone adhering to Sharia Law should not be president, even if the Constitution would allow it to happen, is that in Islam there can be no loyalty to any entity other than Allah. A Muslim president could not honestly take the oath of office because his only loyalty would be to Islam and an Islamic takeover and overthrow of the Constitution he would be swearing to defend.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Second Republican Debate
After the pitifully poor debates in 2012, the Republican debates this time have been refreshingly lively and constructive. And unbelievably, I think the CNN debate tonight was moderated better than the Fox News debate last month. The questions were rattled off quickly and the candidates were able to banter back and forth on the issues.
The down side was the moderators kept trying to engineer attacks between the candidates, usually involving Trump, but mostly the candidates didn't take the bait. There were some lively arguments between Trump and Carly Fiorina, Trump and Bush, Trump and Paul, and some spats between others, but when the debate stalled on Trump and Fiorina's wealth and business success, Chris Christie brought it back in order by saying the debate needed to concentrate on what they were going to do for the middle class and the economy.
Bush had a lot more energy and made a joke about himself and the energizer rabbit which was well received, and Marco Rubio was on fire about foreign policy. Fiorina and Scott Walker also tried to keep the debate on track by attacking Hillary and Obama, but the high point of the evening may have been when Fiorina made an impassioned to defund Planned Parenthood. It received a largest applause of the evening. Huckabee also spoke against Planned Parenthood. Ted Cruz was once again solid, although I don't think his performance was as good as in the first debate. Kasich had the best argument for himself and the economy since he engineered the balanced budget during the Clinton administration. In the end all of them showed themselves to be worthy debaters with strong positions, and most of them probably helped themselves to some degree.
The winner was most likely Carly Fiorina who showed herself to be tough and focused. Her downside may have been that she was too stern, and when she stood up to Trump on his comment about her looks and he gave what would be the closest thing to a Trump apology that anyone could hope for, she refused to look at him or be magnanimous in the least. She looked angry most of the night. She probably also won the sympathy vote when the discussion came to drugs and she told of her son who had died of a drug overdose. Two others who really shined were Christie and Rubio.
The losers ironically I think were the two that are on top of the polls. Trump's self-confidence will probably still take him a long way but his brash, condescension towards other candidates is starting to wear thin. He keeps talking about putting together a plan, but we've yet to hear very much of it, and people are going to grow tired of that eventually. The same is true for Ben Carson in the opposite direction. Yes he's intelligent, and yes he's humble, and yes he's got the right position on about all the issues, but his soft spoken manner is also getting tiring, and I think people are going to want him to speak up and get a little more animated or he isn't going to go far. Rand Paul did better than the last debate but I don't think he made many points.
Scott Walker, although he had good presence and solid answers, and won a dust up with Trump when he said we don't need another apprentice in the White House, was given the least amount of time to talk which couldn't have helped him, although that wouldn't be his fault. It makes you wonder if he's the one the left fears the most.
The down side was the moderators kept trying to engineer attacks between the candidates, usually involving Trump, but mostly the candidates didn't take the bait. There were some lively arguments between Trump and Carly Fiorina, Trump and Bush, Trump and Paul, and some spats between others, but when the debate stalled on Trump and Fiorina's wealth and business success, Chris Christie brought it back in order by saying the debate needed to concentrate on what they were going to do for the middle class and the economy.
Bush had a lot more energy and made a joke about himself and the energizer rabbit which was well received, and Marco Rubio was on fire about foreign policy. Fiorina and Scott Walker also tried to keep the debate on track by attacking Hillary and Obama, but the high point of the evening may have been when Fiorina made an impassioned to defund Planned Parenthood. It received a largest applause of the evening. Huckabee also spoke against Planned Parenthood. Ted Cruz was once again solid, although I don't think his performance was as good as in the first debate. Kasich had the best argument for himself and the economy since he engineered the balanced budget during the Clinton administration. In the end all of them showed themselves to be worthy debaters with strong positions, and most of them probably helped themselves to some degree.
The winner was most likely Carly Fiorina who showed herself to be tough and focused. Her downside may have been that she was too stern, and when she stood up to Trump on his comment about her looks and he gave what would be the closest thing to a Trump apology that anyone could hope for, she refused to look at him or be magnanimous in the least. She looked angry most of the night. She probably also won the sympathy vote when the discussion came to drugs and she told of her son who had died of a drug overdose. Two others who really shined were Christie and Rubio.
The losers ironically I think were the two that are on top of the polls. Trump's self-confidence will probably still take him a long way but his brash, condescension towards other candidates is starting to wear thin. He keeps talking about putting together a plan, but we've yet to hear very much of it, and people are going to grow tired of that eventually. The same is true for Ben Carson in the opposite direction. Yes he's intelligent, and yes he's humble, and yes he's got the right position on about all the issues, but his soft spoken manner is also getting tiring, and I think people are going to want him to speak up and get a little more animated or he isn't going to go far. Rand Paul did better than the last debate but I don't think he made many points.
Scott Walker, although he had good presence and solid answers, and won a dust up with Trump when he said we don't need another apprentice in the White House, was given the least amount of time to talk which couldn't have helped him, although that wouldn't be his fault. It makes you wonder if he's the one the left fears the most.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Planned Parenthood
When I was in the Navy they held a fund raiser every year called the Combined Federal Campaign. Raffle tickets were sold to both enlisted and officers for a number of prizes including TVs, stereos, washing machines, and occasionally a car if you were at a large enough base with a lot of people on board. The officers bought the majority of the tickets to finance the program but the enlisted troops won all the prizes. We all suspected it was rigged because every year one officer would win a coffee pot while all the valuable prizes went to the troops. We didn't mind, it was designed to help them.
Along with the drawing in 1990 a list of hundreds of charitable organizations was handed out that we could choose from if we wished to support any of them by having an amount garnished direct from our paychecks every month. The list had information about the organizations including how much in charitable contributions they received on average annually, and how much of their receipts went to administration and salaries, and how much went to actual charity. When I came across Planned Parenthood I was struck by the fact that 49% of their contributions went to salaries and administration. I was sitting in the Ready Room at our squadron going over the list when I decided to support National Right to Life. Only 13% of their contributions went to salaries and administration, and it was a cause I am strongly in favor of. As I filled out the form somebody asked me what I had chosen and the debate was on.
In my years in the military I found that the vast majority of servicemen and women were generally conservative and voted Republican. Ronald Reagan was very popular. But the conservatism of most of them ended at economics, foreign policy, patriotism and American exceptionalism. Most had a very New Age view of morality, and while they might be respectful of religion (many attended chapel services), they had no biblical conviction on morals. Relative truth ruled the day, and when it came to abortion, most favored "a woman's right to choose."
Any discussion on the right to life would of course include abortion, and the debate that day migrated to Planned Parenthood. I knew about Planned Parenthood. Even in 1990 it was a major abortion provider under the deceitful guise of being a family planning organization. While everybody else defended it for non-existent mammograms and other things, one pilot in particular denied that Planned Parenthood did abortions and smirked and laughed at me for suggesting it did. (I wonder what he thinks now that it has been proven Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in the entire country.) I blew my stack and got so animated I was waving my arms at him while I let him know how uninformed he was. A couple of the other pilots jumped in and asked me what I was so excited about. "Because," I said, "he's wrong, he got my goat, and I'm not reacting well. I'm sorry."
I never had the discussion with that particular pilot again, but everybody knew where I stood on abortion. I was almost alone in my conviction in the squadron. I never lost my cool again, but the subject always makes me angry. I've heard all the arguments. In the eighties people were still sanctimoniously saying, "How do you know when life begins?" That's the most asinine of all abortion questions. The Bible is clear life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5). That being rejected, however, the physical argument still proves it. When the sperm fertilizes the egg and the zygote is formed the first thing it immediately does is duplicate. Then it does it again. In seconds the one cell has become two, then four, then eight, then sixteen. It is growing. Only live things grow. Dead things don't grow. Viability is not the issue. The baby is a living human being from conception.
The whole case on abortion rests on the inconvenience the baby may be to the mother and/or the father. They don't want to be bothered. In most cases the babies being aborted belong to unwed mothers. For many it may be a hard choice to make. It is understandable. For others there is no question. For Planned Parenthood it is a money making opportunity and that's all they care about.
We live in a culture where people are so oversexed that they want to be free to live out whatever sexual desires they have without facing any responsibility for their actions. If you disagree with this decadent lifestyle you're often called hateful and a prude. The defense for this licentious living is always to ask about exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Surely you can't be so uncompassionate that you can't make room for those exceptions they argue.
Okay, let's consider a couple of cases. In one, the mother is over forty, the father has syphilis, and three older children are already sickly and mentally unstable. The so-called compassionate argument is to let her have the abortion. Why take a risk on another sick child whose life would be miserable, not to mention the burden on the parents? If you agree to an abortion, you just killed Beethoven.
Let's try another. The mother is forty-four. The placenta has attached low in the birth canal and has torn loose. When it tore the mother hemorrhaged and was in the hospital for a month. The baby was barely hanging on. Now the mother has to be on bed-rest for the entire pregnancy which includes two more bleeding spells and trips to the hospital. To further complicate her misery the mother has a sciatic nerve problem and is in constant pain which only grows as the baby grows. In the seventh month she's in so much pain she's afraid she won't survive another six weeks to give birth. Surely the caring thing to do is end her suffering. After all, one doctor has already told her the baby couldn't survive and recommended ending the pregnancy. If you agree with this doctor to an abortion you just killed my son!
Today my son, Ethan, is seven years old, at the top of his second grade class in an advanced curriculum Montessori school, he speaks two languages fluently, plays the piano and is learning to play the guitar. Rather than being a burden, he is a blessing to my wife and I as we get older.
Another story similar to ours is Tim Tebow, the football player. Figure it out. How many Beethovens and Tebows, how many artists, athletes, doctors, writers, educators, scientists, inventors, astronauts, builders, you name it, and how many precious little children like Ethan have never had a chance to live, to dream, to accomplish, to be a blessing because of abortion? How many potential discoveries and advancements will never be made or will be delayed indefinitely because of the lives slaughtered in these greedy, money-driven, mad abortuaries?
Even if we allow for the rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions, the truth is if these conditions were strictly followed there would only be a handful of abortions on any given day. The fact is there are over 3,500 abortions performed daily, 1.1 million annually, and well over 99.9% of these are elective abortions that have nothing to do with any of the exceptions. Over 57 million babies have been murdered by abortion since 1973. That's about the number of people who died worldwide in World War Two. This is a holocaust of unprecedented proportions.
Now a series of undercover videos by The Center for Medical Progress has emerged revealing the truth about Planned Parenthood. Starting with Planned Parenthood executives talking candidly about baby parts while eating salads, and laughing about making enough money to buy Lamborghinis, they have progressed to more serious talk of how they salvage baby parts intact, and just when you think it couldn't get any more hideous the most recent videos expose them talking about cutting the faces of babies open to remove the brain intact while the heart of the aborted child which has survived the procedure is still beating. Can it get anymore reprehensible than that? It's plain murder.
Any decent person would cringe at the thought, but not only do these Planned Parenthood abortionists not cringe, they have no compassion, they are heartless, cold, calculating and cruel. They have ice in their veins. They are godless. And what's worse, they don't care. They talk about harvesting body parts like it's picking snow peas from the garden. It's all money to them. They don't care that they are brazenly breaking the law in harvesting and selling body parts. They laugh at it. These are the most vile, heinous, wicked people in the world. The sanctity of life means nothing to them. The odious terrorists of ISIS are no more loathsome than these people. A pox on Cecile Richards, a pox on the entire Democrat Party for supporting Planned Parenthood, and a pox on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who can't find the time to bring the defunding of Planned Parenthood to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
The Heritage Foundation invited 2,000 Democrat staffers in Washington to watch a screening of the nine videos exposing Planned Parenthood. Four showed up and watched them all the way through. That's the Democrat Party. Mitch McConnell belongs in that group. They don't want to be faced with the truth because what they are doing is open rebellion against God, morality, and everything decent. Abortion is the shedding of the innocent blood of babies on the altar of paganism in worship of the devil himself. It's the theology of atheistic humanism which is the religion of God-booing leftists.
Don't be swayed when you hear someone who doesn't even believe the Bible say Jesus would have compassion on struggling mothers and approve of what they are doing, or "judge not that ye be not judged." These people have judged the life of innocent babies not to be worthy and are murdering them by the thousands every day. They don't know God. The fact is, Jesus, quite contrary to the leftist brand of compassion, has already judged them. In Matthew 18:6 Jesus said:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Do you not think that if Jesus cares this much about children, He cares just the same about babies in the womb? The wrath of God's judgment is hanging over the United States of America like Damocles sword. As a nation we have become so wicked that I wonder if that sword will remain suspended until the next election? Is there a chance God might still have mercy on our nation after this 57 million baby holocaust? Perhaps, if we will put a stop to this abominable practice of abortion. A good place to start would be the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and then closing it down altogether.
I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just, and that His justice will not sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson
Along with the drawing in 1990 a list of hundreds of charitable organizations was handed out that we could choose from if we wished to support any of them by having an amount garnished direct from our paychecks every month. The list had information about the organizations including how much in charitable contributions they received on average annually, and how much of their receipts went to administration and salaries, and how much went to actual charity. When I came across Planned Parenthood I was struck by the fact that 49% of their contributions went to salaries and administration. I was sitting in the Ready Room at our squadron going over the list when I decided to support National Right to Life. Only 13% of their contributions went to salaries and administration, and it was a cause I am strongly in favor of. As I filled out the form somebody asked me what I had chosen and the debate was on.
In my years in the military I found that the vast majority of servicemen and women were generally conservative and voted Republican. Ronald Reagan was very popular. But the conservatism of most of them ended at economics, foreign policy, patriotism and American exceptionalism. Most had a very New Age view of morality, and while they might be respectful of religion (many attended chapel services), they had no biblical conviction on morals. Relative truth ruled the day, and when it came to abortion, most favored "a woman's right to choose."
Any discussion on the right to life would of course include abortion, and the debate that day migrated to Planned Parenthood. I knew about Planned Parenthood. Even in 1990 it was a major abortion provider under the deceitful guise of being a family planning organization. While everybody else defended it for non-existent mammograms and other things, one pilot in particular denied that Planned Parenthood did abortions and smirked and laughed at me for suggesting it did. (I wonder what he thinks now that it has been proven Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in the entire country.) I blew my stack and got so animated I was waving my arms at him while I let him know how uninformed he was. A couple of the other pilots jumped in and asked me what I was so excited about. "Because," I said, "he's wrong, he got my goat, and I'm not reacting well. I'm sorry."
I never had the discussion with that particular pilot again, but everybody knew where I stood on abortion. I was almost alone in my conviction in the squadron. I never lost my cool again, but the subject always makes me angry. I've heard all the arguments. In the eighties people were still sanctimoniously saying, "How do you know when life begins?" That's the most asinine of all abortion questions. The Bible is clear life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5). That being rejected, however, the physical argument still proves it. When the sperm fertilizes the egg and the zygote is formed the first thing it immediately does is duplicate. Then it does it again. In seconds the one cell has become two, then four, then eight, then sixteen. It is growing. Only live things grow. Dead things don't grow. Viability is not the issue. The baby is a living human being from conception.
The whole case on abortion rests on the inconvenience the baby may be to the mother and/or the father. They don't want to be bothered. In most cases the babies being aborted belong to unwed mothers. For many it may be a hard choice to make. It is understandable. For others there is no question. For Planned Parenthood it is a money making opportunity and that's all they care about.
We live in a culture where people are so oversexed that they want to be free to live out whatever sexual desires they have without facing any responsibility for their actions. If you disagree with this decadent lifestyle you're often called hateful and a prude. The defense for this licentious living is always to ask about exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Surely you can't be so uncompassionate that you can't make room for those exceptions they argue.
Okay, let's consider a couple of cases. In one, the mother is over forty, the father has syphilis, and three older children are already sickly and mentally unstable. The so-called compassionate argument is to let her have the abortion. Why take a risk on another sick child whose life would be miserable, not to mention the burden on the parents? If you agree to an abortion, you just killed Beethoven.
Let's try another. The mother is forty-four. The placenta has attached low in the birth canal and has torn loose. When it tore the mother hemorrhaged and was in the hospital for a month. The baby was barely hanging on. Now the mother has to be on bed-rest for the entire pregnancy which includes two more bleeding spells and trips to the hospital. To further complicate her misery the mother has a sciatic nerve problem and is in constant pain which only grows as the baby grows. In the seventh month she's in so much pain she's afraid she won't survive another six weeks to give birth. Surely the caring thing to do is end her suffering. After all, one doctor has already told her the baby couldn't survive and recommended ending the pregnancy. If you agree with this doctor to an abortion you just killed my son!
Today my son, Ethan, is seven years old, at the top of his second grade class in an advanced curriculum Montessori school, he speaks two languages fluently, plays the piano and is learning to play the guitar. Rather than being a burden, he is a blessing to my wife and I as we get older.
Another story similar to ours is Tim Tebow, the football player. Figure it out. How many Beethovens and Tebows, how many artists, athletes, doctors, writers, educators, scientists, inventors, astronauts, builders, you name it, and how many precious little children like Ethan have never had a chance to live, to dream, to accomplish, to be a blessing because of abortion? How many potential discoveries and advancements will never be made or will be delayed indefinitely because of the lives slaughtered in these greedy, money-driven, mad abortuaries?
Even if we allow for the rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions, the truth is if these conditions were strictly followed there would only be a handful of abortions on any given day. The fact is there are over 3,500 abortions performed daily, 1.1 million annually, and well over 99.9% of these are elective abortions that have nothing to do with any of the exceptions. Over 57 million babies have been murdered by abortion since 1973. That's about the number of people who died worldwide in World War Two. This is a holocaust of unprecedented proportions.
Now a series of undercover videos by The Center for Medical Progress has emerged revealing the truth about Planned Parenthood. Starting with Planned Parenthood executives talking candidly about baby parts while eating salads, and laughing about making enough money to buy Lamborghinis, they have progressed to more serious talk of how they salvage baby parts intact, and just when you think it couldn't get any more hideous the most recent videos expose them talking about cutting the faces of babies open to remove the brain intact while the heart of the aborted child which has survived the procedure is still beating. Can it get anymore reprehensible than that? It's plain murder.
Any decent person would cringe at the thought, but not only do these Planned Parenthood abortionists not cringe, they have no compassion, they are heartless, cold, calculating and cruel. They have ice in their veins. They are godless. And what's worse, they don't care. They talk about harvesting body parts like it's picking snow peas from the garden. It's all money to them. They don't care that they are brazenly breaking the law in harvesting and selling body parts. They laugh at it. These are the most vile, heinous, wicked people in the world. The sanctity of life means nothing to them. The odious terrorists of ISIS are no more loathsome than these people. A pox on Cecile Richards, a pox on the entire Democrat Party for supporting Planned Parenthood, and a pox on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who can't find the time to bring the defunding of Planned Parenthood to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
The Heritage Foundation invited 2,000 Democrat staffers in Washington to watch a screening of the nine videos exposing Planned Parenthood. Four showed up and watched them all the way through. That's the Democrat Party. Mitch McConnell belongs in that group. They don't want to be faced with the truth because what they are doing is open rebellion against God, morality, and everything decent. Abortion is the shedding of the innocent blood of babies on the altar of paganism in worship of the devil himself. It's the theology of atheistic humanism which is the religion of God-booing leftists.
Don't be swayed when you hear someone who doesn't even believe the Bible say Jesus would have compassion on struggling mothers and approve of what they are doing, or "judge not that ye be not judged." These people have judged the life of innocent babies not to be worthy and are murdering them by the thousands every day. They don't know God. The fact is, Jesus, quite contrary to the leftist brand of compassion, has already judged them. In Matthew 18:6 Jesus said:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Do you not think that if Jesus cares this much about children, He cares just the same about babies in the womb? The wrath of God's judgment is hanging over the United States of America like Damocles sword. As a nation we have become so wicked that I wonder if that sword will remain suspended until the next election? Is there a chance God might still have mercy on our nation after this 57 million baby holocaust? Perhaps, if we will put a stop to this abominable practice of abortion. A good place to start would be the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and then closing it down altogether.
I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just, and that His justice will not sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, August 27, 2015
The Trump Card
Donald Trump has been in the spotlight for several decades, not only as a financial wizard and real estate mogul, but also for his much publicized divorce from his Czech wife, Ivana, in 1992. They were both outspoken and obnoxious, they both survived. I remember thinking when one of his casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, filed for bankruptcy that this vain, brash, self-absorbed business giant was about to be taken down.
But Trump didn't go down. It turns out he has a lot more business acumen than most people realize and he has used it to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Using bankruptcy laws to help stretch out his loan payments, or for whatever reason it was, helped him to restructure and come out stronger than before and he eventually paid all his debts. He certainly knows how to use the system.
When he talked about running for president in 2012 I thought please don't. He would be a side show and if he wound up splitting the Republican vote he would throw the election to Obama. After all he was just a RINO himself, pro-abortion, and dividing his votes and support between Republican and Democrat candidates alike. As it turned out it didn't matter. Mitt Romney ran such an inept campaign that he gave the election, which any competent candidate would have won, away to Obama.
When Trump announced this time I thought it was going to be a joke. His announcement speech was not polished. He sounded like a blow hard with no substance, who would stir things up and then go away. But he didn't go away.
In fact, he struck a chord with people who are tired of politically correct politicians with no guts, who surrender on issues every time the political correct police start criticizing and calling names. He called out the so-called conservatives who slaughtered the Democrats in the last congressional elections by promising to stand up to Obama and overturn obamacare, who have bowed the knee to the White House and done nothing. All of a sudden Trump was outpolling all the Republican candidates and even though his first debate performance was not stellar he is still leading the field. Not only is his candidacy not a joke, it's for real, and interestingly enough he's drawing the majority of his support from grass roots conservatives. He's wooing the base of the Republican Party, the Christians and the right wing, people who in the past would probably have been appalled by Trump's personal life and history.
But now it turns out Trump is not pro-abortion. The media gave him that tag and it stuck, but he claims to be pro-life and always has been. In Dubuque, Iowa, he said that the Bible is the best book in the world. Whether he has actually read it or not is a question because he has said he never asks God for help. One has to wonder if his sudden appreciation for the Bible is just a typical leftist style comment designed to try and fool the religious right the way Clinton or Obama would do. But actually Trump has been the most outspoken in defense of the First Amendment and against the increasing persecution of Christians in America.
Economics rules the world and Trump obviously knows economics, finance, and business better than the lawyer class of politicians and bureaucrats who run Washington, D.C. He knows how to grow the economy and bring jobs back to America and has a plan to do it. He has a common sense approach to world affairs. He wants to secure the border with Mexico, rebuild our military to a position of strength and respect on the world stage, and he wants to undo the idiotic, lunatic nuclear deal with Iran. He wants to win in the Middle East and he has a plan to use Middle Eastern oil to finance the victory. You don't hear anybody talking that tough about anything, not even the best of the Republican candidates.
Although he is not as smooth as Reagan, Trump is very Reaganesque in his positions and his approach. He's bold, confident, and not afraid to tell the truth about anything. He hears what middle class America is saying and is speaking to it. His style may be brazen at times, but he's connecting with people who are fed up with the childish, petty antics of political correctness, and do nothing establishment Congresses stuck in the muck of Washington politics and completely out of touch with most of America.
Critics say he is all over the place on issues with no plan and no experience in foreign affairs. They say he'll make the world a more dangerous place. You mean like more dangerous than it is now after seven years of a community organizer with no experience at anything?
The critics called Reagan a "cowboy," complained that he had no experience in foreign affairs and warned that he would start World War 3. Instead, Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. The same critics vilified Sarah Palin for not having the necessary experience even though she was the governor of Alaska, but they didn't bat an eye at Obama's non-record. BHO has surrendered the free world to Islamic terrorism by not taking a stand on any issue. The panty-waste milksop negotiation approach obviously isn't working. What we need is another cowboy in charge.
Personally my first choice in the coming election is Ted Cruz. He and Trump are on the same page or close on many issues. He has a much softer manner than Trump, but he is just as firm in his positions, and he is for the Fair Tax, which I prefer over Trump's Flat Tax plan. He's also a born again Christian, unafraid to publicly share his testimony, and most likely reads the Bible often. And honestly, any return of America to conservative ideals, such as what happened under Reagan, will be short-lived (as it was under Bush 1, which led to Clinton, which then led to Bush 2 and Obama) if there is not a spiritual revival to bring America back from the immoral abyss we are beginning to fall into.
I think, however, that this next election is so critical to our nation's survival that maybe what we need is an arrogant, boastful, big mouth who believes in American exceptionalism, is not afraid to preach it, who will govern by the rule of law in the Constitution, and has the spine and the chutzpah in foreign policy to put the world in its place while he rebuilds America to number one. One thing is for sure, nobody since Ronald Reagan has shaken up the American political scene like Donald Trump.
But Trump didn't go down. It turns out he has a lot more business acumen than most people realize and he has used it to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Using bankruptcy laws to help stretch out his loan payments, or for whatever reason it was, helped him to restructure and come out stronger than before and he eventually paid all his debts. He certainly knows how to use the system.
When he talked about running for president in 2012 I thought please don't. He would be a side show and if he wound up splitting the Republican vote he would throw the election to Obama. After all he was just a RINO himself, pro-abortion, and dividing his votes and support between Republican and Democrat candidates alike. As it turned out it didn't matter. Mitt Romney ran such an inept campaign that he gave the election, which any competent candidate would have won, away to Obama.
When Trump announced this time I thought it was going to be a joke. His announcement speech was not polished. He sounded like a blow hard with no substance, who would stir things up and then go away. But he didn't go away.
In fact, he struck a chord with people who are tired of politically correct politicians with no guts, who surrender on issues every time the political correct police start criticizing and calling names. He called out the so-called conservatives who slaughtered the Democrats in the last congressional elections by promising to stand up to Obama and overturn obamacare, who have bowed the knee to the White House and done nothing. All of a sudden Trump was outpolling all the Republican candidates and even though his first debate performance was not stellar he is still leading the field. Not only is his candidacy not a joke, it's for real, and interestingly enough he's drawing the majority of his support from grass roots conservatives. He's wooing the base of the Republican Party, the Christians and the right wing, people who in the past would probably have been appalled by Trump's personal life and history.
But now it turns out Trump is not pro-abortion. The media gave him that tag and it stuck, but he claims to be pro-life and always has been. In Dubuque, Iowa, he said that the Bible is the best book in the world. Whether he has actually read it or not is a question because he has said he never asks God for help. One has to wonder if his sudden appreciation for the Bible is just a typical leftist style comment designed to try and fool the religious right the way Clinton or Obama would do. But actually Trump has been the most outspoken in defense of the First Amendment and against the increasing persecution of Christians in America.
Economics rules the world and Trump obviously knows economics, finance, and business better than the lawyer class of politicians and bureaucrats who run Washington, D.C. He knows how to grow the economy and bring jobs back to America and has a plan to do it. He has a common sense approach to world affairs. He wants to secure the border with Mexico, rebuild our military to a position of strength and respect on the world stage, and he wants to undo the idiotic, lunatic nuclear deal with Iran. He wants to win in the Middle East and he has a plan to use Middle Eastern oil to finance the victory. You don't hear anybody talking that tough about anything, not even the best of the Republican candidates.
Although he is not as smooth as Reagan, Trump is very Reaganesque in his positions and his approach. He's bold, confident, and not afraid to tell the truth about anything. He hears what middle class America is saying and is speaking to it. His style may be brazen at times, but he's connecting with people who are fed up with the childish, petty antics of political correctness, and do nothing establishment Congresses stuck in the muck of Washington politics and completely out of touch with most of America.
Critics say he is all over the place on issues with no plan and no experience in foreign affairs. They say he'll make the world a more dangerous place. You mean like more dangerous than it is now after seven years of a community organizer with no experience at anything?
The critics called Reagan a "cowboy," complained that he had no experience in foreign affairs and warned that he would start World War 3. Instead, Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. The same critics vilified Sarah Palin for not having the necessary experience even though she was the governor of Alaska, but they didn't bat an eye at Obama's non-record. BHO has surrendered the free world to Islamic terrorism by not taking a stand on any issue. The panty-waste milksop negotiation approach obviously isn't working. What we need is another cowboy in charge.
Personally my first choice in the coming election is Ted Cruz. He and Trump are on the same page or close on many issues. He has a much softer manner than Trump, but he is just as firm in his positions, and he is for the Fair Tax, which I prefer over Trump's Flat Tax plan. He's also a born again Christian, unafraid to publicly share his testimony, and most likely reads the Bible often. And honestly, any return of America to conservative ideals, such as what happened under Reagan, will be short-lived (as it was under Bush 1, which led to Clinton, which then led to Bush 2 and Obama) if there is not a spiritual revival to bring America back from the immoral abyss we are beginning to fall into.
I think, however, that this next election is so critical to our nation's survival that maybe what we need is an arrogant, boastful, big mouth who believes in American exceptionalism, is not afraid to preach it, who will govern by the rule of law in the Constitution, and has the spine and the chutzpah in foreign policy to put the world in its place while he rebuilds America to number one. One thing is for sure, nobody since Ronald Reagan has shaken up the American political scene like Donald Trump.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Tomfoolery, Craziness, and Cruel
Obama went to Kenya and even though he was warned ahead of time by the Kenyan government not to lecture them about homosexuality, he lectured them about homosexuality. Essentially he told them they needed to change their culture. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta then essentially told Obama to shut up. Gay rights are not a part of Kenyan culture and they are not about to change. (Polygamy and immorality are, but not homosexuality.)
Back in America at a Young African Leaders Initiative Presidential Summit in Washington, D.C. a reporter asked Obama about the African practice of killing people with albinism and harvesting body parts for ritual reasons. "My request to you is to raise this issue with the heads of states from African countries to bring these atrocities to an end, for the benefit of for us in this room, and our brothers and sisters back in Africa."
Obama replied, "That's tomfoolery. That's craziness. It's cruel." He encouraged the audience to resist such a practice because any tradition whether in the United States, Africa, or anywhere that treats people differently because of fear, ignorance, or because you feel superior is a bad tradition.
You mean like abortion?
The next day the next in a series of undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood for the cold-hearted, money-making abortion slaughter house industry that it is was released showing a discussion with a Planned Parenthood doctor about saving the baby intact to harvest all of its parts. Obama's response? He defended Planned Parenthood. The illegal sale of harvested body parts caused the Justice Department to open an investigation ... not of Planned Parenthood, but of the people making the videos.
The head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said the videos show a "lack of compassion" ... by the makers of the videos, of course! The callousness of the doctors eating salad and laughing about buying Lamborghinis while discussing crushing babies in a way to keep salvageable body parts intact is so intensely vile that it turns any decent person's stomach. Lack of compassion? What about the child they are ripping apart and dissecting for financial gain? These people don't even know the meaning of the word. Not only do they lack compassion, they have no conscience.
Then Harry "the rat" Reid came out with the most moronic assertion of all. The Republican Party, he said, because they want to defund Planned Parenthood, "has lost its moral compass." Who is he to measure morality? The Left has no moral compass at all and hasn't had for a long time. We've heard it from Bill Clinton and we hear it constantly from Obama about our values and who we are. Values to the them means a lack of any guiding moral principle in life. Their values are perversion, hedonism, and a warped self-serving immorality that includes not only homosexual marriage but the ghastly, calculated murder of unborn infants, and by this latest video, possibly even live babies. When they talk about who we are, this is what they are talking about.
There aren't decent enough words to describe how decadent and sybaritic America has become. This is what you might expect in a barbarian, uncivilized, primitive culture hidden away somewhere in a jungle, and we've brought it home to roost on our civilized paved roads and air-conditioned buildings in our alabaster cities. The anti-God left and its media worshippers praise Richards for defending a "woman's right to choose." They call the most hideous assault on the most helpless of all people an act of courage and compassion. They call the most odious evil in the world good and then praise themselves for doing it.
Then empty-headed fools take to the streets to protest and call for the hanging of a hunter because he killed a lion in Africa that somebody had given a name. They complain about a flag because to them it represents a culture of hate and now all of a sudden it offends them, even though they've never been offended before. These same people have never shed one tear for 57 million aborted babies. Instead they equate Conservatives who are trying to protect life, one of the core principles of the Declaration of Independence, with Hitler and the Nazi party. You know, the ones who murdered six million Jews in the holocaust. Figure it out; America's abortuaries have slaughtered ten times as many babies as Hitler killed Jews. They have taken as many lives as were lost in all of World War 2.
Where will this put America at the bar of history? How are we as a nation going to answer to God for this wickedness? The Bible says that the blood of martyrs cries out to God for vengeance (Revelation 6:10). How much more do you think the innocent blood of babies destroyed in hideous, torturous abortions cries out? These are people. They are living human beings. Viability is not the issue. Babies in the womb are living, growing human beings. They are alive from conception. Science and technology have proven it true. There is no more argument about when life begins. The question for those who vote Democrat is how are you going to justify supporting a pro-abortion candidate and platform when you stand before God?
If we don't put a stop to this America will end up in the dustbin of history along with the USSR. How ironic after all that Vladimir Putin should call America godless and lecture Obama about persecuting Christians. This is the hope and change Obama has given us. It's tomfoolery. It's craziness. It's cruel. It will destroy us unless we change our culture back to our godly, Christian roots, and end homosexual marriage and abortion.
Back in America at a Young African Leaders Initiative Presidential Summit in Washington, D.C. a reporter asked Obama about the African practice of killing people with albinism and harvesting body parts for ritual reasons. "My request to you is to raise this issue with the heads of states from African countries to bring these atrocities to an end, for the benefit of for us in this room, and our brothers and sisters back in Africa."
Obama replied, "That's tomfoolery. That's craziness. It's cruel." He encouraged the audience to resist such a practice because any tradition whether in the United States, Africa, or anywhere that treats people differently because of fear, ignorance, or because you feel superior is a bad tradition.
You mean like abortion?
The next day the next in a series of undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood for the cold-hearted, money-making abortion slaughter house industry that it is was released showing a discussion with a Planned Parenthood doctor about saving the baby intact to harvest all of its parts. Obama's response? He defended Planned Parenthood. The illegal sale of harvested body parts caused the Justice Department to open an investigation ... not of Planned Parenthood, but of the people making the videos.
The head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said the videos show a "lack of compassion" ... by the makers of the videos, of course! The callousness of the doctors eating salad and laughing about buying Lamborghinis while discussing crushing babies in a way to keep salvageable body parts intact is so intensely vile that it turns any decent person's stomach. Lack of compassion? What about the child they are ripping apart and dissecting for financial gain? These people don't even know the meaning of the word. Not only do they lack compassion, they have no conscience.
Then Harry "the rat" Reid came out with the most moronic assertion of all. The Republican Party, he said, because they want to defund Planned Parenthood, "has lost its moral compass." Who is he to measure morality? The Left has no moral compass at all and hasn't had for a long time. We've heard it from Bill Clinton and we hear it constantly from Obama about our values and who we are. Values to the them means a lack of any guiding moral principle in life. Their values are perversion, hedonism, and a warped self-serving immorality that includes not only homosexual marriage but the ghastly, calculated murder of unborn infants, and by this latest video, possibly even live babies. When they talk about who we are, this is what they are talking about.
There aren't decent enough words to describe how decadent and sybaritic America has become. This is what you might expect in a barbarian, uncivilized, primitive culture hidden away somewhere in a jungle, and we've brought it home to roost on our civilized paved roads and air-conditioned buildings in our alabaster cities. The anti-God left and its media worshippers praise Richards for defending a "woman's right to choose." They call the most hideous assault on the most helpless of all people an act of courage and compassion. They call the most odious evil in the world good and then praise themselves for doing it.
Then empty-headed fools take to the streets to protest and call for the hanging of a hunter because he killed a lion in Africa that somebody had given a name. They complain about a flag because to them it represents a culture of hate and now all of a sudden it offends them, even though they've never been offended before. These same people have never shed one tear for 57 million aborted babies. Instead they equate Conservatives who are trying to protect life, one of the core principles of the Declaration of Independence, with Hitler and the Nazi party. You know, the ones who murdered six million Jews in the holocaust. Figure it out; America's abortuaries have slaughtered ten times as many babies as Hitler killed Jews. They have taken as many lives as were lost in all of World War 2.
Where will this put America at the bar of history? How are we as a nation going to answer to God for this wickedness? The Bible says that the blood of martyrs cries out to God for vengeance (Revelation 6:10). How much more do you think the innocent blood of babies destroyed in hideous, torturous abortions cries out? These are people. They are living human beings. Viability is not the issue. Babies in the womb are living, growing human beings. They are alive from conception. Science and technology have proven it true. There is no more argument about when life begins. The question for those who vote Democrat is how are you going to justify supporting a pro-abortion candidate and platform when you stand before God?
If we don't put a stop to this America will end up in the dustbin of history along with the USSR. How ironic after all that Vladimir Putin should call America godless and lecture Obama about persecuting Christians. This is the hope and change Obama has given us. It's tomfoolery. It's craziness. It's cruel. It will destroy us unless we change our culture back to our godly, Christian roots, and end homosexual marriage and abortion.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Signs of the Times: Dispensationalism
Text: Ephesians 1:3-12; 3:1-6
Introduction: During the Cold War the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was the international belief that said that as long as there is parity in nuclear weapons and missiles the world would be safe from a nuclear war because everybody would be afraid to use them. It set off an arms race that had people in so much fear that we actually had “duck and cover” drills in public schools. It also set off a plethora of cheap sci-fi movies in the 1950s with World War 3 scenarios where the last surviving humans are trying to escape the radiation that has turned other people into monsters.
The most serious and realistic of these was a 1959 film called On the Beach that starred Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. The plot in this story had the entire northern hemisphere destroyed by a nuclear holocaust, and the only survivors on earth were in Australia waiting for the radiation to blow their way. It was a serious consideration of what the world might have been like, and there were no monsters.
I saw the movie on television when I was about eight or nine years old. We saw it at my dad’s place. I asked my dad’s wife if it was true about the nuclear weapons. Oh, yes, she assured me. There are weapons that could destroy the whole world right now. I went to bed in fear for several nights after that thinking the world could be destroyed at any minute, until I asked my mother about it and she gave me a better explanation.
A lot of people think a nuclear war such as this would be Armageddon. In 2003 as the US was preparing to invade Iraq critics were warning that it could bring about Armageddon. This all comes from a misunderstanding that Armageddon might be a World War 3 nuclear holocaust that ends the world. That’s not what it is, and nothing that happens now will bring it about.
The Battle of Armageddon takes place at the end of the Tribulation period described in Revelation 16:16. When it happens, if you’re a Christian, you don’t have to worry about it. If you have been born again by receiving Christ as your Savior, you will have been raptured out seven years earlier and will be coming with Christ in the air on the winning side. At Armageddon the armies of the world will gather to defy the Lord and fight against His return, and in a moment they will be destroyed. We don’t have to worry about Armageddon.
We do believe we are in the end times. In the last three weeks we’ve been looking at the signs. The only clue as to the time frame for the Lord’s return is Israel being restored to their land. That happened in 1948. Everything else that has happened since then only serves to give us more perspective as to the meaning of things we see in the Book of Revelation. Next week we are going to look at the Tribulation period described in Revelation 5-19. Today we are considering Dispensationalism. I referred to this idea in the first message in this series, and today I will try to explain it.
I. Two Theological constructs: Covenantal and Dispensational.
There are two basic theological systems that have come down to us in our day. The first is Covenant Theology. A covenant can be described as a structure by which the biblical text organizes itself. The reformer, John Calvin, formed this system five hundred years ago. It is followed mostly by Presbyterian and Reformed Churches today.
Theologically a covenant is an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and His people. There were several covenants made during the Old Testament times. The first was the Adamic Covenant between God and the first man. There was also a covenant with Noah after the flood. The Abrahamic Covenant promised to make a nation of Abraham’s descendants. There are several others including the Davidic Covenant, which guaranteed the perpetuity of David’s House. When Christ returns He will rule from the Throne of David.
Covenant Theology, however, is based on a system of only three major covenants, Works, Grace, and Redemption. The Works Covenant represents the past, Grace represents the present, and Redemption the future. It relies on an allegorical (symbolic) interpretation of Scripture and believes the New Testament Church succeeded Israel as God’s chosen people.
A dispensation is an administration or a system of management. The Greek word can also be translated as stewardship. In theology a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time. It recognizes divinely appointed ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. It is an evangelical futurist biblical interpretation that sees God relating to man in different ways under different covenants in historical periods. It gives us a perspective of history and how it relates to the Bible and God.
There are two primary distinctives in dispensationalism: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of the Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a distinction between Israel and the church in God’s program.
The Dispensational concept was written out by a Scottish theologian named John Darby in the 1830s, and promoted by C.I. Schofield in his reference Bible in the 20th century. Thus it has received much criticism from Covenant theologians for being a “new” doctrine only recently formulated and therefore discredited. We might say the same thing about Covenant Theology since it was only invented during the Reformation, and there is no scriptural or historical precedence for any similar teaching prior to that time.
However, as we have seen in our text the word “dispensation” is found in the Bible. The Greek word is translated “dispensation” four times, and is also translated “stewardship” three other times in the New Testament. And, for example, John made a contrast between the Age of the Law and the Age of Grace in John 1:17.
The concept of dispensations has been found in the writings of several theologians through the centuries dating back as early as Irenaeus in the second century, and Augustine, considered by many to be the greatest of all Catholic theologians, in the fifth century. Three hundred years ago the hymn writer, Isaac Watts, who was also a pastor and theologian, developed a chart of theological divisions in history. It is true that Dispensationalism as a theological study has only been recently fully developed, but previous attempts have been made, and it is only with Israel back in their homeland that the concept can now be fully understood.
II. Three reasons why the literal view of Dispensationalism is the best way to read the Scripture.
The three reasons why the literal view of Dispensationalism is the best way to look at Scripture are philosophical, biblical, and practical.
It is the best way philosophically because the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Words have meaning and should be taken for what they mean, not for some spiritual explanation. For example, suppose I were to tell you “I am going to the mall this week.” Now I’ve been to the mall last week and many times before, but you wouldn’t look at my statement and say, Well, he fulfilled that prophecy last week, so there must be some other spiritual meaning to it that refers to the last time he went. You wouldn’t say that, you would take me literally at my word.
So why then, as Covenant theology does, should we take the Book of Revelation, a book full of prophetic events that have never yet happened, and say that it has some spiritual meaning that was fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? If you can discount Revelation as a literal book, what other books might you decide are just spiritually speaking? John also wrote the Gospel of John. Should it also be taken as just an allegory? And who has the authority to choose? If you can decide one portion of Scripture is spiritual and not literal, what is to stop me from thinking another passage is just spiritual? Which one of us would be right? Before long we would have the entire Bible relegated to symbolism and we’d have no basis to believe anything.
This is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons do. Anything in the Bible that does not fit their theology they determine to be only a spiritual symbol. Why should we follow a theological practice that is based on the same fallacies of cult theologies? Now understand that there is a lot of symbolism in Revelation, but there is a literal meaning to each of the symbols, and it is all future. That is the only consistent way to look at Scripture.
Dispensationalism is the best way biblically because every prophecy concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, the thirty pieces of silver, His sayings on the cross, and His resurrection occurred exactly and literally as the Old Testament predicted. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If the literal method is not used in studying and interpreting the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible.
The third reason is the practicality of a literal interpretation. If the Bible is taken literally, there is only one way it can be interpreted and there is no confusion. If the literal method is not used in studying the Scriptures, then every person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me...” instead of “the Bible says....” Sadly, this is the case in much of what is called interpretation today.
Some of you know there has been a lot of controversy about Bob Jones University recently. Many people are not satisfied with the way they have handled it. I was in a conversation with one graduate who said that God spoke to her through a verse in Isaiah that she should get her Congressman and Senators involved in holding BJU accountable. First, she doesn’t understand the American Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, which is designed to keep the government out of Christian business. More importantly, she doesn’t understand the hermeneutics of biblical interpretation. You cannot take one verse at random out of the context in which it is written and claim a personal message from God. 2 Peter 1:20 clearly refutes that idea. There is no Scripture of any private interpretation, it says.
By the way, I am on the same side of the argument as this friend of mine. I don’t think BJU has adequately handled the problem, but her method is not right. The literal interpretation of Scripture is the only consistent way to interpret Scripture.
III. Basic beliefs of Dispensationalism.
Before we look at the dispensations, there are four basic beliefs that dispensationalists hold that will help to understand the system. One is that there are two distinct peoples in God’s economy: Israel and the Church. The second is that the church has not replaced Israel. God’s promises to Israel (Abrahamic Covenant) have not been transferred to the church. Third, while God is now focusing His attention on the Church, He will focus again on Israel in the millennial kingdom.
The fourth is that salvation has always been by faith. People were saved by faith in God in the Old Testament era, not by works as Covenant Theology suggests. People are saved by faith in the Son of God in the New Testament, which is merely a more specific identification of God since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one.
IV. Seven Dispensational periods seen in Scripture.
There are seven dispensational periods that give historical perspective to the Scripture and give us an understanding of how God has worked with people through the ages. So let’s examine each one.
1. The Age of Innocence (Genesis 1-3:7).
This first dispensation lasted from the creation to the fall of man into sin, sometime before 4,000 BC. The world was in perfection. Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with God. God’s commands for them were to replenish the earth with children; subdue the earth (farm it, plant crops, use the natural resources of the land), have dominion over the animals, care for the garden, and do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This dispensation was short lived and ended with Adam’s disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit.
2. The Age of Conscience (Genesis 3:8-8).
By counting genealogies we see this period lasted about 1656 years from sometime before 4,000 BC to around 2550 BC. In this age there is no church or government to hold anyone accountable for the way they live. It was up to man’s conscience.
Now there are some things we do need to read into the Scripture a little. For example, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices. Abel’s was accepted, but Cain’s was rejected because it wasn’t a blood sacrifice. How were they to know that? Obviously God told Adam what would be required and he passed it on to his sons. One was obedient and one rebelled according to their consciences. It demonstrates what man will do when left to his own machinations.
We hear all the time people crying out for more laws or policies to reduce crime and bring about peace. If we level the economic playing field; if we eliminate poverty; if we get rid of guns; if the government takes care of us! These will never work. Socialist ideas will never bring about peace. They won’t because they leave God out of the equation. All the evolutionary talk about man improving himself and making a better world is blind narcissism. Man without God always descends into moral wickedness and depravity.
The two most important aspects of this dispensation are the curse of sin and the promise of a Savior (Genesis 3:15). The age ended with the destruction of all mankind by flood. Only Noah and his family survived.
3. Age of Human Government (Genesis 9-11).
There were many changes in the world after the flood in both the natural world and the animal kingdom. The earth apparently tilted on its axis, a result of the floodwaters, and we have the beginning of seasons. Animals suddenly became wild and feared man. There were also two important changes concerning man. One, he was allowed to eat meat, and capital punishment was established (Genesis 9:1-3). This at least implied human government, and it wouldn’t take long before the world saw its first government, which turned out to be a dictatorship, and a rather evil one at that.
God gave Noah the promise never again to destroy the earth by flood and signed it with the rainbow. Then He told Noah to replenish the earth. Apparently God wanted men to scatter and subdue many lands around the world, but man didn’t disperse. Instead he built a tower at Babel to honor the greatness of man, and their solidarity and pride in rebellion against God. In response God confused the languages and forced the people to scatter into different language groups and the beginning of nations. The age lasted about 400 years and ended with the call of Abraham.
4. The Age of Promise (Genesis 12-Exodus 19).
Man’s conscience failed to hold him accountable, and the establishment of government to hold men accountable also failed. So after confusing the languages and scattering the people around the world God determined to work through one man and his family, rather than through human governments.
God made a covenant with Abraham in which He promised Abraham that his descendants would become a great nation. In Abraham all the families of the earth would be blessed. This was fulfilled in Christ and salvation being made available to the entire world. He also gave Abraham the promise of a homeland, which included all of present day Palestine, but stretched from the Nile River to the Euphrates. The sign of the covenant was to be circumcision, and it was repeated to Isaac and Jacob, but was confined to the Hebrew people only. In other words, it was not transferrable to the Church. This period began with the call of Abraham, and lasted nearly 700 years until the Exodus from Egypt.
5. The Age of the Law (Exodus 20-the end of the Gospels).
At the end of the last dispensation, Jacob and his sons were down in Egypt to escape a famine. They remained there 430 years (Exodus 12:40) until God called Moses to lead them out of Egypt, across the Red Sea, and down to Mt. Sinai. There, God gave Moses the Law.
From this point on God would deal with the Jewish nation through the Law and by His presence in the Ark of the Covenant. Priests in the lineage of Levi directed Temple worship. Further communication would come through the prophets. This Age of the Law lasted from about 1491 BC when Moses received the Law until about AD 31 when Christ rose from the grave.
At one time during David and Solomon’s reigns Israel occupied or controlled most of the territory God had deeded to them. But due to disobedience and continued rebellion, the kingdom first split into two, and then the Jews in both kingdoms were conquered, in 722 BC by the Assyrians, and 586 BC by the Babylonians, and were scattered. They were brought together and briefly were an independent nation from 175-63 BC, but then they were conquered by Rome and were enslaved when Christ was born. It was the Roman governor Pontius Pilate that condemned Jesus to the cross.
The Age of the Law ended with Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross for our sins and His resurrection from the grave. Christ did not destroy the Law, but fulfilled the purpose of the Law. The Law was a schoolmaster convincing the world of sin. It offered temporary atonement through blood sacrifices, but it was all a picture of the perfect sacrifice that came in Jesus Christ. His perfect redemption fulfilled the Law.
6. The Age of Grace (Acts 1-Revelation 19).
The Age of Grace began with the death and resurrection of Christ. Some suggest it began with the Lord’s Supper the night before the crucifixion. God’s grace is extended worldwide to both Jews and Gentiles. Man’s responsibility in this age is to believe in Christ (John 3:18). In this age born again believers have the advantage of the Holy Spirit dwelling in their hearts (John 14:16-26) and sealing them until the day of Redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
This is the age we are living in right now. It is our privilege not to be any longer under the Law, but to have liberty of conscience in our daily walk with Christ. However, liberty is not to be seen as an excuse for licentiousness. We are to live under the conviction and leading of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, and make sound decisions based on the will of God, and not our own. We are to be holy as Christ is holy. We are to think thoughts that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and full of good report. We are to walk worthy of the Lord.
God gave the Church one command for this age: we are to be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem, in Judea, and in Samaria, and in the farthest regions of the earth (Acts 1:8). This age has lasted now nearly 2,000 years, and nobody knows when it will end, but we do believe we are in the last days before the Rapture.
When we are called out in the Rapture, an antichrist will ascend to world power for a seven-year period. God’s wrath of judgment will be poured out on the world at that time, but even though the Holy Spirit will not be present, God’s grace will be. Many will be saved as they oppose the antichrist and trust the Lord. This Age of Grace will end with the Second Coming of Christ.
7. The Age of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ (Revelation 19-20).
The return of Christ will fulfill the last of the messianic prophecies concerning Him and His reign on the earth. The Jewish nation will be redeemed and Christ will sit on the Throne of David in Jerusalem. The subjects of this kingdom will be those Jews plus all Gentiles who refused the Mark of the Beast and accepted Christ, and survived the Tribulation period. No unsaved person will be allowed to enter this kingdom. Satan will be bound for a thousand years in a bottomless pit (Revelation 20:2-3)
The reign of Christ will be one of complete peace and prosperity. The world will blossom once again like the Garden of Eden. The animal kingdom will again be subdued and at peace with mankind. The wolf and the lamb, the leopard and the goat, the lion and the calf will dwell together (Isaiah 11). The lame will leap as a deer, the dumb will sing, the blind will see and the deaf will hear (Isaiah 35). It will be a perfect world.
Then at the end of the millennium, Satan will be let loose for a brief time to gather a final army of malcontents and will be defeated. As the Millennial Kingdom ends, an eternal Kingdom begins (Revelation 21-22).
Conclusion: These are the seven dispensations that we believe most adequately explain the way God has worked among men since the creation. They give us a spiritual perspective on history that is consistent with a literal interpretation of Scripture. And because Scripture has been fulfilled literally in the past, we have sure confidence that all prophetic utterances concerning the future will also be fulfilled literally. This is our great hope. The Lord will one day come for us. He has given us many clues to suggest we are in the last days before the Rapture takes place.
This is not the time to sit down and become complacent or despair at the world’s condition. It is the time to get busy telling people about Christ, about our hope for the future, and how they can have it too.
Introduction: During the Cold War the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was the international belief that said that as long as there is parity in nuclear weapons and missiles the world would be safe from a nuclear war because everybody would be afraid to use them. It set off an arms race that had people in so much fear that we actually had “duck and cover” drills in public schools. It also set off a plethora of cheap sci-fi movies in the 1950s with World War 3 scenarios where the last surviving humans are trying to escape the radiation that has turned other people into monsters.
The most serious and realistic of these was a 1959 film called On the Beach that starred Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. The plot in this story had the entire northern hemisphere destroyed by a nuclear holocaust, and the only survivors on earth were in Australia waiting for the radiation to blow their way. It was a serious consideration of what the world might have been like, and there were no monsters.
I saw the movie on television when I was about eight or nine years old. We saw it at my dad’s place. I asked my dad’s wife if it was true about the nuclear weapons. Oh, yes, she assured me. There are weapons that could destroy the whole world right now. I went to bed in fear for several nights after that thinking the world could be destroyed at any minute, until I asked my mother about it and she gave me a better explanation.
A lot of people think a nuclear war such as this would be Armageddon. In 2003 as the US was preparing to invade Iraq critics were warning that it could bring about Armageddon. This all comes from a misunderstanding that Armageddon might be a World War 3 nuclear holocaust that ends the world. That’s not what it is, and nothing that happens now will bring it about.
The Battle of Armageddon takes place at the end of the Tribulation period described in Revelation 16:16. When it happens, if you’re a Christian, you don’t have to worry about it. If you have been born again by receiving Christ as your Savior, you will have been raptured out seven years earlier and will be coming with Christ in the air on the winning side. At Armageddon the armies of the world will gather to defy the Lord and fight against His return, and in a moment they will be destroyed. We don’t have to worry about Armageddon.
We do believe we are in the end times. In the last three weeks we’ve been looking at the signs. The only clue as to the time frame for the Lord’s return is Israel being restored to their land. That happened in 1948. Everything else that has happened since then only serves to give us more perspective as to the meaning of things we see in the Book of Revelation. Next week we are going to look at the Tribulation period described in Revelation 5-19. Today we are considering Dispensationalism. I referred to this idea in the first message in this series, and today I will try to explain it.
I. Two Theological constructs: Covenantal and Dispensational.
There are two basic theological systems that have come down to us in our day. The first is Covenant Theology. A covenant can be described as a structure by which the biblical text organizes itself. The reformer, John Calvin, formed this system five hundred years ago. It is followed mostly by Presbyterian and Reformed Churches today.
Theologically a covenant is an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and His people. There were several covenants made during the Old Testament times. The first was the Adamic Covenant between God and the first man. There was also a covenant with Noah after the flood. The Abrahamic Covenant promised to make a nation of Abraham’s descendants. There are several others including the Davidic Covenant, which guaranteed the perpetuity of David’s House. When Christ returns He will rule from the Throne of David.
Covenant Theology, however, is based on a system of only three major covenants, Works, Grace, and Redemption. The Works Covenant represents the past, Grace represents the present, and Redemption the future. It relies on an allegorical (symbolic) interpretation of Scripture and believes the New Testament Church succeeded Israel as God’s chosen people.
A dispensation is an administration or a system of management. The Greek word can also be translated as stewardship. In theology a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time. It recognizes divinely appointed ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. It is an evangelical futurist biblical interpretation that sees God relating to man in different ways under different covenants in historical periods. It gives us a perspective of history and how it relates to the Bible and God.
There are two primary distinctives in dispensationalism: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of the Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a distinction between Israel and the church in God’s program.
The Dispensational concept was written out by a Scottish theologian named John Darby in the 1830s, and promoted by C.I. Schofield in his reference Bible in the 20th century. Thus it has received much criticism from Covenant theologians for being a “new” doctrine only recently formulated and therefore discredited. We might say the same thing about Covenant Theology since it was only invented during the Reformation, and there is no scriptural or historical precedence for any similar teaching prior to that time.
However, as we have seen in our text the word “dispensation” is found in the Bible. The Greek word is translated “dispensation” four times, and is also translated “stewardship” three other times in the New Testament. And, for example, John made a contrast between the Age of the Law and the Age of Grace in John 1:17.
The concept of dispensations has been found in the writings of several theologians through the centuries dating back as early as Irenaeus in the second century, and Augustine, considered by many to be the greatest of all Catholic theologians, in the fifth century. Three hundred years ago the hymn writer, Isaac Watts, who was also a pastor and theologian, developed a chart of theological divisions in history. It is true that Dispensationalism as a theological study has only been recently fully developed, but previous attempts have been made, and it is only with Israel back in their homeland that the concept can now be fully understood.
II. Three reasons why the literal view of Dispensationalism is the best way to read the Scripture.
The three reasons why the literal view of Dispensationalism is the best way to look at Scripture are philosophical, biblical, and practical.
It is the best way philosophically because the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Words have meaning and should be taken for what they mean, not for some spiritual explanation. For example, suppose I were to tell you “I am going to the mall this week.” Now I’ve been to the mall last week and many times before, but you wouldn’t look at my statement and say, Well, he fulfilled that prophecy last week, so there must be some other spiritual meaning to it that refers to the last time he went. You wouldn’t say that, you would take me literally at my word.
So why then, as Covenant theology does, should we take the Book of Revelation, a book full of prophetic events that have never yet happened, and say that it has some spiritual meaning that was fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? If you can discount Revelation as a literal book, what other books might you decide are just spiritually speaking? John also wrote the Gospel of John. Should it also be taken as just an allegory? And who has the authority to choose? If you can decide one portion of Scripture is spiritual and not literal, what is to stop me from thinking another passage is just spiritual? Which one of us would be right? Before long we would have the entire Bible relegated to symbolism and we’d have no basis to believe anything.
This is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons do. Anything in the Bible that does not fit their theology they determine to be only a spiritual symbol. Why should we follow a theological practice that is based on the same fallacies of cult theologies? Now understand that there is a lot of symbolism in Revelation, but there is a literal meaning to each of the symbols, and it is all future. That is the only consistent way to look at Scripture.
Dispensationalism is the best way biblically because every prophecy concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, the thirty pieces of silver, His sayings on the cross, and His resurrection occurred exactly and literally as the Old Testament predicted. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If the literal method is not used in studying and interpreting the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible.
The third reason is the practicality of a literal interpretation. If the Bible is taken literally, there is only one way it can be interpreted and there is no confusion. If the literal method is not used in studying the Scriptures, then every person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me...” instead of “the Bible says....” Sadly, this is the case in much of what is called interpretation today.
Some of you know there has been a lot of controversy about Bob Jones University recently. Many people are not satisfied with the way they have handled it. I was in a conversation with one graduate who said that God spoke to her through a verse in Isaiah that she should get her Congressman and Senators involved in holding BJU accountable. First, she doesn’t understand the American Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, which is designed to keep the government out of Christian business. More importantly, she doesn’t understand the hermeneutics of biblical interpretation. You cannot take one verse at random out of the context in which it is written and claim a personal message from God. 2 Peter 1:20 clearly refutes that idea. There is no Scripture of any private interpretation, it says.
By the way, I am on the same side of the argument as this friend of mine. I don’t think BJU has adequately handled the problem, but her method is not right. The literal interpretation of Scripture is the only consistent way to interpret Scripture.
III. Basic beliefs of Dispensationalism.
Before we look at the dispensations, there are four basic beliefs that dispensationalists hold that will help to understand the system. One is that there are two distinct peoples in God’s economy: Israel and the Church. The second is that the church has not replaced Israel. God’s promises to Israel (Abrahamic Covenant) have not been transferred to the church. Third, while God is now focusing His attention on the Church, He will focus again on Israel in the millennial kingdom.
The fourth is that salvation has always been by faith. People were saved by faith in God in the Old Testament era, not by works as Covenant Theology suggests. People are saved by faith in the Son of God in the New Testament, which is merely a more specific identification of God since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one.
IV. Seven Dispensational periods seen in Scripture.
There are seven dispensational periods that give historical perspective to the Scripture and give us an understanding of how God has worked with people through the ages. So let’s examine each one.
1. The Age of Innocence (Genesis 1-3:7).
This first dispensation lasted from the creation to the fall of man into sin, sometime before 4,000 BC. The world was in perfection. Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with God. God’s commands for them were to replenish the earth with children; subdue the earth (farm it, plant crops, use the natural resources of the land), have dominion over the animals, care for the garden, and do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This dispensation was short lived and ended with Adam’s disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit.
2. The Age of Conscience (Genesis 3:8-8).
By counting genealogies we see this period lasted about 1656 years from sometime before 4,000 BC to around 2550 BC. In this age there is no church or government to hold anyone accountable for the way they live. It was up to man’s conscience.
Now there are some things we do need to read into the Scripture a little. For example, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices. Abel’s was accepted, but Cain’s was rejected because it wasn’t a blood sacrifice. How were they to know that? Obviously God told Adam what would be required and he passed it on to his sons. One was obedient and one rebelled according to their consciences. It demonstrates what man will do when left to his own machinations.
We hear all the time people crying out for more laws or policies to reduce crime and bring about peace. If we level the economic playing field; if we eliminate poverty; if we get rid of guns; if the government takes care of us! These will never work. Socialist ideas will never bring about peace. They won’t because they leave God out of the equation. All the evolutionary talk about man improving himself and making a better world is blind narcissism. Man without God always descends into moral wickedness and depravity.
The two most important aspects of this dispensation are the curse of sin and the promise of a Savior (Genesis 3:15). The age ended with the destruction of all mankind by flood. Only Noah and his family survived.
3. Age of Human Government (Genesis 9-11).
There were many changes in the world after the flood in both the natural world and the animal kingdom. The earth apparently tilted on its axis, a result of the floodwaters, and we have the beginning of seasons. Animals suddenly became wild and feared man. There were also two important changes concerning man. One, he was allowed to eat meat, and capital punishment was established (Genesis 9:1-3). This at least implied human government, and it wouldn’t take long before the world saw its first government, which turned out to be a dictatorship, and a rather evil one at that.
God gave Noah the promise never again to destroy the earth by flood and signed it with the rainbow. Then He told Noah to replenish the earth. Apparently God wanted men to scatter and subdue many lands around the world, but man didn’t disperse. Instead he built a tower at Babel to honor the greatness of man, and their solidarity and pride in rebellion against God. In response God confused the languages and forced the people to scatter into different language groups and the beginning of nations. The age lasted about 400 years and ended with the call of Abraham.
4. The Age of Promise (Genesis 12-Exodus 19).
Man’s conscience failed to hold him accountable, and the establishment of government to hold men accountable also failed. So after confusing the languages and scattering the people around the world God determined to work through one man and his family, rather than through human governments.
God made a covenant with Abraham in which He promised Abraham that his descendants would become a great nation. In Abraham all the families of the earth would be blessed. This was fulfilled in Christ and salvation being made available to the entire world. He also gave Abraham the promise of a homeland, which included all of present day Palestine, but stretched from the Nile River to the Euphrates. The sign of the covenant was to be circumcision, and it was repeated to Isaac and Jacob, but was confined to the Hebrew people only. In other words, it was not transferrable to the Church. This period began with the call of Abraham, and lasted nearly 700 years until the Exodus from Egypt.
5. The Age of the Law (Exodus 20-the end of the Gospels).
At the end of the last dispensation, Jacob and his sons were down in Egypt to escape a famine. They remained there 430 years (Exodus 12:40) until God called Moses to lead them out of Egypt, across the Red Sea, and down to Mt. Sinai. There, God gave Moses the Law.
From this point on God would deal with the Jewish nation through the Law and by His presence in the Ark of the Covenant. Priests in the lineage of Levi directed Temple worship. Further communication would come through the prophets. This Age of the Law lasted from about 1491 BC when Moses received the Law until about AD 31 when Christ rose from the grave.
At one time during David and Solomon’s reigns Israel occupied or controlled most of the territory God had deeded to them. But due to disobedience and continued rebellion, the kingdom first split into two, and then the Jews in both kingdoms were conquered, in 722 BC by the Assyrians, and 586 BC by the Babylonians, and were scattered. They were brought together and briefly were an independent nation from 175-63 BC, but then they were conquered by Rome and were enslaved when Christ was born. It was the Roman governor Pontius Pilate that condemned Jesus to the cross.
The Age of the Law ended with Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross for our sins and His resurrection from the grave. Christ did not destroy the Law, but fulfilled the purpose of the Law. The Law was a schoolmaster convincing the world of sin. It offered temporary atonement through blood sacrifices, but it was all a picture of the perfect sacrifice that came in Jesus Christ. His perfect redemption fulfilled the Law.
6. The Age of Grace (Acts 1-Revelation 19).
The Age of Grace began with the death and resurrection of Christ. Some suggest it began with the Lord’s Supper the night before the crucifixion. God’s grace is extended worldwide to both Jews and Gentiles. Man’s responsibility in this age is to believe in Christ (John 3:18). In this age born again believers have the advantage of the Holy Spirit dwelling in their hearts (John 14:16-26) and sealing them until the day of Redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
This is the age we are living in right now. It is our privilege not to be any longer under the Law, but to have liberty of conscience in our daily walk with Christ. However, liberty is not to be seen as an excuse for licentiousness. We are to live under the conviction and leading of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, and make sound decisions based on the will of God, and not our own. We are to be holy as Christ is holy. We are to think thoughts that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and full of good report. We are to walk worthy of the Lord.
God gave the Church one command for this age: we are to be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem, in Judea, and in Samaria, and in the farthest regions of the earth (Acts 1:8). This age has lasted now nearly 2,000 years, and nobody knows when it will end, but we do believe we are in the last days before the Rapture.
When we are called out in the Rapture, an antichrist will ascend to world power for a seven-year period. God’s wrath of judgment will be poured out on the world at that time, but even though the Holy Spirit will not be present, God’s grace will be. Many will be saved as they oppose the antichrist and trust the Lord. This Age of Grace will end with the Second Coming of Christ.
7. The Age of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ (Revelation 19-20).
The return of Christ will fulfill the last of the messianic prophecies concerning Him and His reign on the earth. The Jewish nation will be redeemed and Christ will sit on the Throne of David in Jerusalem. The subjects of this kingdom will be those Jews plus all Gentiles who refused the Mark of the Beast and accepted Christ, and survived the Tribulation period. No unsaved person will be allowed to enter this kingdom. Satan will be bound for a thousand years in a bottomless pit (Revelation 20:2-3)
The reign of Christ will be one of complete peace and prosperity. The world will blossom once again like the Garden of Eden. The animal kingdom will again be subdued and at peace with mankind. The wolf and the lamb, the leopard and the goat, the lion and the calf will dwell together (Isaiah 11). The lame will leap as a deer, the dumb will sing, the blind will see and the deaf will hear (Isaiah 35). It will be a perfect world.
Then at the end of the millennium, Satan will be let loose for a brief time to gather a final army of malcontents and will be defeated. As the Millennial Kingdom ends, an eternal Kingdom begins (Revelation 21-22).
Conclusion: These are the seven dispensations that we believe most adequately explain the way God has worked among men since the creation. They give us a spiritual perspective on history that is consistent with a literal interpretation of Scripture. And because Scripture has been fulfilled literally in the past, we have sure confidence that all prophetic utterances concerning the future will also be fulfilled literally. This is our great hope. The Lord will one day come for us. He has given us many clues to suggest we are in the last days before the Rapture takes place.
This is not the time to sit down and become complacent or despair at the world’s condition. It is the time to get busy telling people about Christ, about our hope for the future, and how they can have it too.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Signs of the Times: The Prophetic Discourse
Text: Matthew 24:3-14, I Thessalonians 4:13-18.
Introduction: Back in 1987 there was a woman with a frame shop out along the National Highway by the Kalayaan Gate to the Subic Bay Metro Authority. (It used to be the back gate for the US Navy base.) She did good work and I had a number of pictures framed there. She was a Christian and always had her radio on a Christian station playing music or listening to preachers. Unfortunately she began to listen to some cultic guy who predicted that the Lord was coming back sometime in late 1987. She began warning everybody, her customers and neighbors, and sold everything and closed her business.
On the appointed day she woke up happy and excited, waiting confidently for the trumpet sound expecting to get raptured. By noon when nothing had happened she began to get a little nervous, and as the day went on she was really worried. In the evening she began crying and wailing out loud. One of her neighbors heard her praying, “Lord please come now or I’ll be so embarrassed.” That’s why we don’t set dates!
If you watched the news this week you know the US finally concluded a treaty with Iran over its nuclear program. Actually, the Obama administration surrendered. Iran is now on tract to become a powerful player in the end time scenario. Remember last time we talked about the alignment of nations for a great battle that will occur at the beginning of the Tribulation period. Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe the battle and the nations involved. They include the kings of the far north, generally assumed to be Russia, as well as the entire area of Armenia and Asia Minor, and Ethiopia, which we showed has a treaty agreement with Russia, as well as Libya, Egypt and Persia, which is modern day Iran. With an ascendant Iran supporting terrorist activities all over the region it becomes clear that a nuclear Iran will be a powerful enemy of Israel.
A lot of people ask whether or not America is in prophecy for the last days. The direct answer is no. You cannot find any kind of reference to America in the Scripture. At the same time you can’t discard America from the end time scenario. The antichrist will rise at the head of a European empire and will control a world that has a nuclear Russia and China. How is he going to do that from Europe?
I’ll tell you how. Prophecy preachers have often said that America will have to decline and even turn on Israel before all this can happen. We actually see that happening now, but even with a weakened America, Europe doesn’t have the firepower to confront Russia or China on its own. So, where does America fit in? NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization connects the United States to Europe in a defense pact. With the rise of the antichrist America will be a subservient nation as far as leadership, influence and foreign policy goes, but it will have the military muscle to back the antichrist in his bid to rule the world. So in that respect, I would say America will have a big part to play in the end times, but only as it is connected to the antichrist. But the direct answer to the US being in prophecy is that it is not found in the Scripture.
Here’s something else I saw this week. Obama said something recently that since he hasn’t been assassinated and he was re-elected that he is fulfilling God’s purpose in being the president of the United States. It’s an incredible statement for its effrontery, but ironically he is right, only not in the way he assumes. He is so full of himself that he thinks it is God’s will for him to carry out his anti-Christian agenda. I wonder which god he is talking about?
The reality is, if he’s fulfilling God’s plan it’s because he’s bringing America down to its knees militarily and influentially on the world stage, turning us into a third world country, weakening our resolve, corrupting our morals and preparing the US to submit to the rule of the antichrist. In that respect he is fulfilling God’s plan. It’s not something he should be proud of by any means. He is disgracing the greatest nation the world has ever seen.
I. The Last Prophetic Discourse of Christ (Matthew 24).
In the first two verses of this chapter Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple his disciples ask him three questions. When will this happen? What will be the sign He is coming to be King? Is there a sign to indicate the end of the world?
Now remember at the end of the Church Age, the Lord is going to rapture out all of the believers in Christ, that is, everyone who has received Christ as their personal Savior. This event will happen seven years at least prior to the Second Coming when Christ will set up His earthly kingdom. All of the signs that Jesus then gave to His disciples in the following verses pertain to the Second Coming.
Now the Covenant theologians, Presbyterians and Reformed Churches, believe all this was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. But if you read on through this passage, and compare it with the Book of Revelation, there is no way it could have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 unless this is all an allegory, and has no literal meaning. We reject that, because Baptists are literalists, but this passage in Matthew 24 is still controversial, even among Baptists.
Some refer to this as a “Kingdom” text. They believe everything Jesus has spoken about here will happen after the Rapture and is pointing to the Second Coming. Then about a hundred years ago C.I. Schofield wrote out a systematic study Bible that became popular among many Baptists for over half a century. He divided the text at verse 14. Everything before that was pre-Rapture, but everything after was Tribulation. Verse 15 on couldn’t be anything else. The Abomination of Desolation takes place halfway into the Tribulation period, so at the very least everything after verse 14 must be during the Tribulation.
I think there is a credible argument for both. Jesus is telling the disciples what to watch for to signify the Lord’s coming. But all the things He mentions in verses 3-14 have been happening for the last 1900 years. And they will continue, and I think even as we are seeing that they will become more frequent, and after we are raptured they will continue at an even faster pace until verse 15, and still continue to grow until the Second Coming.
II. What Signs Did Jesus Give Us? (24:5-14).
John warned us in I John 4:3 not to be fooled by antichrists, and said there are already many antichrists in the world. This was around A.D. 90. It didn’t take long for false messiahs to come along trying to capitalize on the Christian religion by presenting themselves as Christ. Jesus also gave us warning in verse 5.
In the second century there was a Jewish man, Simon bar Kokhba, who led a revolt against Rome, claiming he was Christ. He was killed in A.D. 135. Another Jew, Solomon Molcho, converted and was baptized a Catholic in Spain. But when he declared himself to be Christ he was burned in the Inquisition in 1532.
Ann Lee, an early leader of the Shakers, in 1772 claimed to be the female incarnation of Christ. There was even a Mormon antichrist. Arnold Potter in 1870 claimed to be the Lord returned and became known as the “Potter Christ” to the Mormons.
In the 1930s the Rastafarian movement began by claiming that Haile Selassie of Ethiopia was Christ. Selassie didn’t claim it, but this group claimed it for him.
In the 1970s the Korean messiah, Sun Myung Moon, claimed to be Christ returned. His followers were called Moonies, and were found everywhere, often in airports where they were always hitting people up for money. The movement faded away when Moon was arrested for tax evasion.
Jim Jones and the People’s Temple made news in Guyana in 1978 when, after murdering a US congressman, 900 followers of Jones drank poisoned Kool-Aid and died. Another maniacal leader, David Koresh, claimed to be Christ and led a following known as the Branch Davidians. They were all burned to death in an FBI raid that went bad in 1993.
In Kenya there is a cult called the Legend Maria. I don’t remember the founder’s name, but back in about 1993 he began to teach that he was Christ returned. A religion grew around him, his followers wearing either blue or purple robes, but about 1996 he got sick and died. But before he passed away he said he would rise from the grave in three days. His followers waited by the graveside in vain, but it did not weaken their belief. To this day they still do pilgrimages to the site, where they crawl on their knees for over a mile to see the grave, still waiting for him to rise.
Right now in Australia is a man called Alan John Miller who claims to be Christ. His wife, Mary Luck, claims to be Mary Magdalene.
Now these are only a few, but there have been hundreds of people claiming to be Christ since Jesus ascended back to heaven. All of them have been false, and all others until the Rapture will also be false. You know how you can tell if someone claiming to be Christ is an antichrist? It’s simple. If you are born again, and someone comes saying he is Christ returned and you are still here, he isn’t Christ.
In verses 6-7 we read of wars, rumors of wars, and nation rising against nation. The thing is, there have always been wars, and interestingly enough, most of the largest, bloodiest of all wars have taken place on the smallest continent, Europe. There was a general peace during the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) that lasted for 200 years until about A.D. 200. But Rome had an internal civil war in A.D. 311, and then faced constant battles with the barbarian tribes, the Huns, Goths, and Visigoths, until they finally succumbed in 476.
The rise of Islam in the 600s brought war from Arabia all across the Middle East and North Africa and into Spain. At the Battle of Tours in 732 the Muslim expansion was halted, and in 1492, the same year Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain sent Columbus across the ocean on a historic venture, they launched an attack against Islam to drive it out of Spain.
In the eleventh century the Crusades began and were waged for 200 years. Then in 1241 Genghis Kahn’s Golden Horde rode from Mongolia across Russia to Hungary and conquered most of Eastern Europe. In the 1400s Europe fought the Hundred Years War. It was a series of separate conflicts, but it took a hundred years before they were resolved. Then in 1618-1648 the Thirty Years War was fought the same way.
In the 17th and 18th centuries Britain and France waged the French and Indian Wars that stretched from the American colonies to India. Then Napoleon conquered all of Europe all the way to Moscow before the cold winters defeated his army. Besides the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War and the Austro-Prussian War devastated Europe in the 19th century.
And then came the 20th; World War I, World War 2, the Cold War fought in places like Korea and Vietnam, and then the Gulf War. All along there have been numerous smaller scale tribal wars including genocides all over Africa, and now we have the War on Terror.
The point is there have always been wars, but the last century saw an expansion of wars at an unprecedented scale. World War 2 killed more people than all the previous wars in the history of the world combined. And then suddenly there was peace.
In 1991, US President George H.W. Bush put together a coalition of 90 some nations to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. While the Soviet Union and China didn’t approve, they both said they would not interfere. The war was over in 100 days and the US pulled its troops out of the Iraq. By the end of the year the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War was over, and there was a brief period where there were no major conflicts going on in the world. It was man’s best effort to bring about world peace since Cain killed Abel. Doors for missionaries to penetrate areas of the world that had always been closed were wide open. But the peace only lasted a few months. Genocide broke out in the Balkans and Somalia, and two decades later there are conflicts in so many places that the world is more unstable and unsecure now than it has been at any time since WW 2.
Jesus also mentioned famines, earthquakes and pestilences. These have always been around on a smaller scale. Malaria, yellow fever and cholera have been a scourge across many continents. Today it’s AIDS. It was an undersea earthquake in 2005 that sent the tsunami across the Indian Ocean and killed 230,000 people. There have also been volcanoes, but it does seem that volcanic activity in the last 30 years or more has been increasing. But all these, Jesus said in verse eight, are the beginning of sorrows.
Efforts to exterminate the Jews have gone on since Jerusalem was destroyed, culminating in Hitler’s Final Solution that killed six of nine million Jews in Europe in WW 2. And now Iran has vowed to destroy Israel and when they get a nuclear weapon it could become a real possibility.
Christian persecution has also been ramped up at unprecedented levels in the last few years. ISIS is even crucifying children for their faith in Jesus Christ. All of this has been going on for two millennia, but when the Tribulation begins it’s going to get worse.
III. The Abomination of Desolation (Daniel 9:24-27).
In Daniel 9 we are introduced to a prophetic timetable of 70 weeks of years that would begin with a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. After 69 weeks, or 483 years, the Messiah would be cut off. The Persian king, Artaxerxes, gave this decree to the priest, Ezra, sometime in the 450s B.C. Christ was then crucified around A.D. 29-31. The 70th week, however, did not immediately follow.
Inserted between the 69th and 70th weeks is the Church Age, which we are in now. This 70th week will begin with the rise of the antichrist who will negotiate a seven-year treaty with Israel. But in the middle of the week, at three and a half years, he will break the treaty and begin a holocaust against the Jews like the world has never yet seen. Jesus warns the Jews in Matthew 24:15-16 that when this event happens they should immediately run for their lives.
Revelation 12:6 then says there is a place in the Wilderness where they will flee, a place that God has prepared and apparently will keep hidden from the antichrist’s forces seeking them. It also gives them the final clue as to the Lord’s coming. Twelve hundred sixty days, or three and a half years following this Abomination of Desolation, the Lord will return to establish His kingdom on earth, and to rescue these remaining Jews, as well as all who have been converted and have survived the Tribulation period.
Where does that put us today? The only sign we know concerning a time frame for the Second Coming is Israel restored in its land, which happened in 1948. All the things we have discussed today have been going on since Christ ascended into heaven, and will continue with increasing frequency as we near the end of the Age. But the Rapture will take place at least seven years before the return of the Lord.
IV. The Rapture of the Church (I Thessalonians 4:13-18).
Our hope for the Rapture is found in verses 13-14. Those who are trusting Christ as Savior have no need to sorrow at death, as do the unsaved. Our faith rests in the death and resurrection of Christ. The fact that He rose from the grave in His own power is the proof that He can raise us to glory when the time comes.
The Lord will descend from heaven with a shout. I’ve always wondered about that. It almost seems to undignified for God to shout out like an athlete or a warrior going into battle. It seems to me that the ones shouting may be all those who are coming with Him. All of the dead in Christ, whose spirits are in heaven now, will be coming back with Christ riding on white horses. My guess is they are the ones who will be shouting in triumph as they descend to conquer the earth.
There is also the voice of the archangel. Michael is the only archangel named, and is the first ranked angel in heaven. He will probably be leading the charge and the shout. And then there is the trump of God. Armies have used trumpets since ancient times to send signals to their troops. This was particularly true with the US Cavalry in the old west. But I wonder if in this case instead of blowing the charge, the trumpet might be playing the Hallelujah Chorus.
At that point the dead in Christ rise first. The remains of all those whose spirits are there in heaven are going to be resurrected to be reunited in the air. It doesn’t matter if they are broken and decayed bones or scattered ashes, God will reconstitute them, and you don’t have to worry about how you will look. You’ll be more perfectly beautiful than you ever have been before. It is then after the graves have been emptied, that we who are alive here on earth will be caught up to join them in the air.
Paul also writes about this moment in I Corinthians 15:51-52. At this moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall all be changed into a glorified, perfect, eternal body. This corruptible flesh will become incorruptible. No more sore muscles or aching bones. No more scrapes and bruises. No more thirst or hunger. No disease, no weakness or fatigue. Everything will be perfect.
Now there is still a controversy about when this will happen in light of the Tribulation period. Covenant theologians tend to dismiss the Rapture as an independent event. Some believe that if we are called out literally, that it will happen at the same time as the Second Coming. In other words, it is called a post-tribulational Rapture. There are also some who believe, based on Matthew 24:15, in a mid-tribulational Rapture. They believe we will go through the first half of the Tribulation, and then be called out at about the same time as the Abomination of Desolation.
The correct view, however, is a pre-tribulational Rapture, and I’ll show you why. When Paul wrote this first letter to the Thessalonians, a lot of people became concerned that this Rapture was going to happen immediately and they had many questions. Paul wrote the second letter to answer those concerns. In the second chapter he gives a clue as to the timing of the Rapture in comparison with the seven-year Tribulation period.
In verses 6-7 reference is made to the Holy Spirit and His work as the “Restrainer.” It is the Holy Spirit in verse 6 that keeps the antichrist from rising to power before his time, but in verse 7 the Holy Spirit is taken out of the way. The only reason that the world today is not already in complete chaos is because of the work of the Holy Spirit holding it back. The only real and lasting good in the world is the result of Christian influence.
Where is the Holy Spirit today? He dwells in the hearts of believers who He has sealed for eternity (Ephesians 4:30). When the Rapture takes place, the Christians are removed. Since we are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, He also is removed. It is only then in verse 8 that the Wicked, Lawless One, the man of sin, the son of perdition (v. 3) will be revealed. The antichrist will not come onto the scene as a world leader until after we are gone, so the only scriptural conclusion we can make is a pre-tribulational Rapture.
Conclusion:
I remember back in the 60s and 70s hearing preachers talking about current events and wondering at all the earthquakes, hurricanes, famines, and other calamities how much it sounded like this description given by Christ in Matthew 24. But we have seen as the years have passed that these things are still happening with more and more frequency. We see an increase in persecution against Christians and Muslim nations openly threatening to destroy Israel. This deal with Iran over nuclear power, if the US Senate passes it, offers no hope for any peaceful resolution to world affairs. I think we can see more clearly now than ever that the Rapture is imminent.
At the same time, we are not down to the last man yet, like Noah. As morally wicked as our cultures have become we still do not have entire cities or countries of gays wearying themselves to have relationships with every stranger in their borders. As difficult as it is becoming in some places, we still have freedom in much of the world to preach the Gospel.
What does this tell us? Simply this: we need to be ready and watching because the shout and the trump could come at any moment, but until it does we have to occupy until He comes. We have to continue to engage people with the Gospel. We need to continue to be involved in our governments and current affairs to influence our leaders in a godly way. We can’t sit down and wait like the woman at the frame shop. We must continue to serve the Lord until the day He comes and calls us out.
Are you ready for that day to come?
Introduction: Back in 1987 there was a woman with a frame shop out along the National Highway by the Kalayaan Gate to the Subic Bay Metro Authority. (It used to be the back gate for the US Navy base.) She did good work and I had a number of pictures framed there. She was a Christian and always had her radio on a Christian station playing music or listening to preachers. Unfortunately she began to listen to some cultic guy who predicted that the Lord was coming back sometime in late 1987. She began warning everybody, her customers and neighbors, and sold everything and closed her business.
On the appointed day she woke up happy and excited, waiting confidently for the trumpet sound expecting to get raptured. By noon when nothing had happened she began to get a little nervous, and as the day went on she was really worried. In the evening she began crying and wailing out loud. One of her neighbors heard her praying, “Lord please come now or I’ll be so embarrassed.” That’s why we don’t set dates!
If you watched the news this week you know the US finally concluded a treaty with Iran over its nuclear program. Actually, the Obama administration surrendered. Iran is now on tract to become a powerful player in the end time scenario. Remember last time we talked about the alignment of nations for a great battle that will occur at the beginning of the Tribulation period. Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe the battle and the nations involved. They include the kings of the far north, generally assumed to be Russia, as well as the entire area of Armenia and Asia Minor, and Ethiopia, which we showed has a treaty agreement with Russia, as well as Libya, Egypt and Persia, which is modern day Iran. With an ascendant Iran supporting terrorist activities all over the region it becomes clear that a nuclear Iran will be a powerful enemy of Israel.
A lot of people ask whether or not America is in prophecy for the last days. The direct answer is no. You cannot find any kind of reference to America in the Scripture. At the same time you can’t discard America from the end time scenario. The antichrist will rise at the head of a European empire and will control a world that has a nuclear Russia and China. How is he going to do that from Europe?
I’ll tell you how. Prophecy preachers have often said that America will have to decline and even turn on Israel before all this can happen. We actually see that happening now, but even with a weakened America, Europe doesn’t have the firepower to confront Russia or China on its own. So, where does America fit in? NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization connects the United States to Europe in a defense pact. With the rise of the antichrist America will be a subservient nation as far as leadership, influence and foreign policy goes, but it will have the military muscle to back the antichrist in his bid to rule the world. So in that respect, I would say America will have a big part to play in the end times, but only as it is connected to the antichrist. But the direct answer to the US being in prophecy is that it is not found in the Scripture.
Here’s something else I saw this week. Obama said something recently that since he hasn’t been assassinated and he was re-elected that he is fulfilling God’s purpose in being the president of the United States. It’s an incredible statement for its effrontery, but ironically he is right, only not in the way he assumes. He is so full of himself that he thinks it is God’s will for him to carry out his anti-Christian agenda. I wonder which god he is talking about?
The reality is, if he’s fulfilling God’s plan it’s because he’s bringing America down to its knees militarily and influentially on the world stage, turning us into a third world country, weakening our resolve, corrupting our morals and preparing the US to submit to the rule of the antichrist. In that respect he is fulfilling God’s plan. It’s not something he should be proud of by any means. He is disgracing the greatest nation the world has ever seen.
I. The Last Prophetic Discourse of Christ (Matthew 24).
In the first two verses of this chapter Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple his disciples ask him three questions. When will this happen? What will be the sign He is coming to be King? Is there a sign to indicate the end of the world?
Now remember at the end of the Church Age, the Lord is going to rapture out all of the believers in Christ, that is, everyone who has received Christ as their personal Savior. This event will happen seven years at least prior to the Second Coming when Christ will set up His earthly kingdom. All of the signs that Jesus then gave to His disciples in the following verses pertain to the Second Coming.
Now the Covenant theologians, Presbyterians and Reformed Churches, believe all this was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. But if you read on through this passage, and compare it with the Book of Revelation, there is no way it could have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 unless this is all an allegory, and has no literal meaning. We reject that, because Baptists are literalists, but this passage in Matthew 24 is still controversial, even among Baptists.
Some refer to this as a “Kingdom” text. They believe everything Jesus has spoken about here will happen after the Rapture and is pointing to the Second Coming. Then about a hundred years ago C.I. Schofield wrote out a systematic study Bible that became popular among many Baptists for over half a century. He divided the text at verse 14. Everything before that was pre-Rapture, but everything after was Tribulation. Verse 15 on couldn’t be anything else. The Abomination of Desolation takes place halfway into the Tribulation period, so at the very least everything after verse 14 must be during the Tribulation.
I think there is a credible argument for both. Jesus is telling the disciples what to watch for to signify the Lord’s coming. But all the things He mentions in verses 3-14 have been happening for the last 1900 years. And they will continue, and I think even as we are seeing that they will become more frequent, and after we are raptured they will continue at an even faster pace until verse 15, and still continue to grow until the Second Coming.
II. What Signs Did Jesus Give Us? (24:5-14).
John warned us in I John 4:3 not to be fooled by antichrists, and said there are already many antichrists in the world. This was around A.D. 90. It didn’t take long for false messiahs to come along trying to capitalize on the Christian religion by presenting themselves as Christ. Jesus also gave us warning in verse 5.
In the second century there was a Jewish man, Simon bar Kokhba, who led a revolt against Rome, claiming he was Christ. He was killed in A.D. 135. Another Jew, Solomon Molcho, converted and was baptized a Catholic in Spain. But when he declared himself to be Christ he was burned in the Inquisition in 1532.
Ann Lee, an early leader of the Shakers, in 1772 claimed to be the female incarnation of Christ. There was even a Mormon antichrist. Arnold Potter in 1870 claimed to be the Lord returned and became known as the “Potter Christ” to the Mormons.
In the 1930s the Rastafarian movement began by claiming that Haile Selassie of Ethiopia was Christ. Selassie didn’t claim it, but this group claimed it for him.
In the 1970s the Korean messiah, Sun Myung Moon, claimed to be Christ returned. His followers were called Moonies, and were found everywhere, often in airports where they were always hitting people up for money. The movement faded away when Moon was arrested for tax evasion.
Jim Jones and the People’s Temple made news in Guyana in 1978 when, after murdering a US congressman, 900 followers of Jones drank poisoned Kool-Aid and died. Another maniacal leader, David Koresh, claimed to be Christ and led a following known as the Branch Davidians. They were all burned to death in an FBI raid that went bad in 1993.
In Kenya there is a cult called the Legend Maria. I don’t remember the founder’s name, but back in about 1993 he began to teach that he was Christ returned. A religion grew around him, his followers wearing either blue or purple robes, but about 1996 he got sick and died. But before he passed away he said he would rise from the grave in three days. His followers waited by the graveside in vain, but it did not weaken their belief. To this day they still do pilgrimages to the site, where they crawl on their knees for over a mile to see the grave, still waiting for him to rise.
Right now in Australia is a man called Alan John Miller who claims to be Christ. His wife, Mary Luck, claims to be Mary Magdalene.
Now these are only a few, but there have been hundreds of people claiming to be Christ since Jesus ascended back to heaven. All of them have been false, and all others until the Rapture will also be false. You know how you can tell if someone claiming to be Christ is an antichrist? It’s simple. If you are born again, and someone comes saying he is Christ returned and you are still here, he isn’t Christ.
In verses 6-7 we read of wars, rumors of wars, and nation rising against nation. The thing is, there have always been wars, and interestingly enough, most of the largest, bloodiest of all wars have taken place on the smallest continent, Europe. There was a general peace during the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) that lasted for 200 years until about A.D. 200. But Rome had an internal civil war in A.D. 311, and then faced constant battles with the barbarian tribes, the Huns, Goths, and Visigoths, until they finally succumbed in 476.
The rise of Islam in the 600s brought war from Arabia all across the Middle East and North Africa and into Spain. At the Battle of Tours in 732 the Muslim expansion was halted, and in 1492, the same year Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain sent Columbus across the ocean on a historic venture, they launched an attack against Islam to drive it out of Spain.
In the eleventh century the Crusades began and were waged for 200 years. Then in 1241 Genghis Kahn’s Golden Horde rode from Mongolia across Russia to Hungary and conquered most of Eastern Europe. In the 1400s Europe fought the Hundred Years War. It was a series of separate conflicts, but it took a hundred years before they were resolved. Then in 1618-1648 the Thirty Years War was fought the same way.
In the 17th and 18th centuries Britain and France waged the French and Indian Wars that stretched from the American colonies to India. Then Napoleon conquered all of Europe all the way to Moscow before the cold winters defeated his army. Besides the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War and the Austro-Prussian War devastated Europe in the 19th century.
And then came the 20th; World War I, World War 2, the Cold War fought in places like Korea and Vietnam, and then the Gulf War. All along there have been numerous smaller scale tribal wars including genocides all over Africa, and now we have the War on Terror.
The point is there have always been wars, but the last century saw an expansion of wars at an unprecedented scale. World War 2 killed more people than all the previous wars in the history of the world combined. And then suddenly there was peace.
In 1991, US President George H.W. Bush put together a coalition of 90 some nations to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. While the Soviet Union and China didn’t approve, they both said they would not interfere. The war was over in 100 days and the US pulled its troops out of the Iraq. By the end of the year the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War was over, and there was a brief period where there were no major conflicts going on in the world. It was man’s best effort to bring about world peace since Cain killed Abel. Doors for missionaries to penetrate areas of the world that had always been closed were wide open. But the peace only lasted a few months. Genocide broke out in the Balkans and Somalia, and two decades later there are conflicts in so many places that the world is more unstable and unsecure now than it has been at any time since WW 2.
Jesus also mentioned famines, earthquakes and pestilences. These have always been around on a smaller scale. Malaria, yellow fever and cholera have been a scourge across many continents. Today it’s AIDS. It was an undersea earthquake in 2005 that sent the tsunami across the Indian Ocean and killed 230,000 people. There have also been volcanoes, but it does seem that volcanic activity in the last 30 years or more has been increasing. But all these, Jesus said in verse eight, are the beginning of sorrows.
Efforts to exterminate the Jews have gone on since Jerusalem was destroyed, culminating in Hitler’s Final Solution that killed six of nine million Jews in Europe in WW 2. And now Iran has vowed to destroy Israel and when they get a nuclear weapon it could become a real possibility.
Christian persecution has also been ramped up at unprecedented levels in the last few years. ISIS is even crucifying children for their faith in Jesus Christ. All of this has been going on for two millennia, but when the Tribulation begins it’s going to get worse.
III. The Abomination of Desolation (Daniel 9:24-27).
In Daniel 9 we are introduced to a prophetic timetable of 70 weeks of years that would begin with a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. After 69 weeks, or 483 years, the Messiah would be cut off. The Persian king, Artaxerxes, gave this decree to the priest, Ezra, sometime in the 450s B.C. Christ was then crucified around A.D. 29-31. The 70th week, however, did not immediately follow.
Inserted between the 69th and 70th weeks is the Church Age, which we are in now. This 70th week will begin with the rise of the antichrist who will negotiate a seven-year treaty with Israel. But in the middle of the week, at three and a half years, he will break the treaty and begin a holocaust against the Jews like the world has never yet seen. Jesus warns the Jews in Matthew 24:15-16 that when this event happens they should immediately run for their lives.
Revelation 12:6 then says there is a place in the Wilderness where they will flee, a place that God has prepared and apparently will keep hidden from the antichrist’s forces seeking them. It also gives them the final clue as to the Lord’s coming. Twelve hundred sixty days, or three and a half years following this Abomination of Desolation, the Lord will return to establish His kingdom on earth, and to rescue these remaining Jews, as well as all who have been converted and have survived the Tribulation period.
Where does that put us today? The only sign we know concerning a time frame for the Second Coming is Israel restored in its land, which happened in 1948. All the things we have discussed today have been going on since Christ ascended into heaven, and will continue with increasing frequency as we near the end of the Age. But the Rapture will take place at least seven years before the return of the Lord.
IV. The Rapture of the Church (I Thessalonians 4:13-18).
Our hope for the Rapture is found in verses 13-14. Those who are trusting Christ as Savior have no need to sorrow at death, as do the unsaved. Our faith rests in the death and resurrection of Christ. The fact that He rose from the grave in His own power is the proof that He can raise us to glory when the time comes.
The Lord will descend from heaven with a shout. I’ve always wondered about that. It almost seems to undignified for God to shout out like an athlete or a warrior going into battle. It seems to me that the ones shouting may be all those who are coming with Him. All of the dead in Christ, whose spirits are in heaven now, will be coming back with Christ riding on white horses. My guess is they are the ones who will be shouting in triumph as they descend to conquer the earth.
There is also the voice of the archangel. Michael is the only archangel named, and is the first ranked angel in heaven. He will probably be leading the charge and the shout. And then there is the trump of God. Armies have used trumpets since ancient times to send signals to their troops. This was particularly true with the US Cavalry in the old west. But I wonder if in this case instead of blowing the charge, the trumpet might be playing the Hallelujah Chorus.
At that point the dead in Christ rise first. The remains of all those whose spirits are there in heaven are going to be resurrected to be reunited in the air. It doesn’t matter if they are broken and decayed bones or scattered ashes, God will reconstitute them, and you don’t have to worry about how you will look. You’ll be more perfectly beautiful than you ever have been before. It is then after the graves have been emptied, that we who are alive here on earth will be caught up to join them in the air.
Paul also writes about this moment in I Corinthians 15:51-52. At this moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall all be changed into a glorified, perfect, eternal body. This corruptible flesh will become incorruptible. No more sore muscles or aching bones. No more scrapes and bruises. No more thirst or hunger. No disease, no weakness or fatigue. Everything will be perfect.
Now there is still a controversy about when this will happen in light of the Tribulation period. Covenant theologians tend to dismiss the Rapture as an independent event. Some believe that if we are called out literally, that it will happen at the same time as the Second Coming. In other words, it is called a post-tribulational Rapture. There are also some who believe, based on Matthew 24:15, in a mid-tribulational Rapture. They believe we will go through the first half of the Tribulation, and then be called out at about the same time as the Abomination of Desolation.
The correct view, however, is a pre-tribulational Rapture, and I’ll show you why. When Paul wrote this first letter to the Thessalonians, a lot of people became concerned that this Rapture was going to happen immediately and they had many questions. Paul wrote the second letter to answer those concerns. In the second chapter he gives a clue as to the timing of the Rapture in comparison with the seven-year Tribulation period.
In verses 6-7 reference is made to the Holy Spirit and His work as the “Restrainer.” It is the Holy Spirit in verse 6 that keeps the antichrist from rising to power before his time, but in verse 7 the Holy Spirit is taken out of the way. The only reason that the world today is not already in complete chaos is because of the work of the Holy Spirit holding it back. The only real and lasting good in the world is the result of Christian influence.
Where is the Holy Spirit today? He dwells in the hearts of believers who He has sealed for eternity (Ephesians 4:30). When the Rapture takes place, the Christians are removed. Since we are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, He also is removed. It is only then in verse 8 that the Wicked, Lawless One, the man of sin, the son of perdition (v. 3) will be revealed. The antichrist will not come onto the scene as a world leader until after we are gone, so the only scriptural conclusion we can make is a pre-tribulational Rapture.
Conclusion:
I remember back in the 60s and 70s hearing preachers talking about current events and wondering at all the earthquakes, hurricanes, famines, and other calamities how much it sounded like this description given by Christ in Matthew 24. But we have seen as the years have passed that these things are still happening with more and more frequency. We see an increase in persecution against Christians and Muslim nations openly threatening to destroy Israel. This deal with Iran over nuclear power, if the US Senate passes it, offers no hope for any peaceful resolution to world affairs. I think we can see more clearly now than ever that the Rapture is imminent.
At the same time, we are not down to the last man yet, like Noah. As morally wicked as our cultures have become we still do not have entire cities or countries of gays wearying themselves to have relationships with every stranger in their borders. As difficult as it is becoming in some places, we still have freedom in much of the world to preach the Gospel.
What does this tell us? Simply this: we need to be ready and watching because the shout and the trump could come at any moment, but until it does we have to occupy until He comes. We have to continue to engage people with the Gospel. We need to continue to be involved in our governments and current affairs to influence our leaders in a godly way. We can’t sit down and wait like the woman at the frame shop. We must continue to serve the Lord until the day He comes and calls us out.
Are you ready for that day to come?
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Confederate Flag
Megyn Kelly has a great program called The Kelly File on Fox News. She's hard hitting and unafraid to stand up to liberal apologists. I watch her when I can and always enjoy her conservative, tell-it-like-it-is perspective. She also has a blog on which she recently posted a long diatribe against Abraham Lincoln in order to argue in favor of keeping Confederate flags flying. Interestingly enough, I am in agreement with her sentiments about the flag, but she could have made the point without this irrational rag on Lincoln. I've posted her article here as far as it went. It suddenly cut off on the website and I wasn't able to find the finish of it. With it I've posted my rebuttal. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that someone as intelligent and articulate as Kelly would put out something as poorly written as this. It's lengthy, but here it is for your perusal. Let me know what you think. Since this blog apparently doesn't allow for colors I've written my answers in italics so there is no question where my comments begin and end.
POSTED ON JULY 9, 2015 BY MEGYN KELLY
The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.
Yes, we are seeing tyranny materializing before our eyes, but there is no comparison with what is happening in the United States today with what happened prior to the Civil War. The issue in the early 1800s was cotton and the slave industry used to produce it. The tariff of abominations concerned the trade of cotton overseas, but affected nobody’s freedom. The abolitionist movement in the North agitated to end slavery, but nobody ever denied a southerner freedom of expression, association, speech or conscience. Attempts to help slaves escape through the Underground Railroad were met with the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision forcing all freed slaves caught in the North to be returned to their owners. That is hardly tyranny.
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.
Yes, truer words have been spoken. Confederate veterans were never subject to derision. They were actually treated with respect at the surrenders. When the war was over veterans on both sides were honored for their valor. Fifty years after Gettysburg at one of the last reunions Union and Confederate veterans sat side by side and shook hands. When the war was over Northern teachers did not invade the South to teach in all their schools. Authors on both sides of the conflict have written plenty of books to argue their case and nobody has prevented southern apologists from being published. The problem in public school education today is that the issue has been too simplified and not well discussed.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.
This is a straw man argument. The liberal attack against Christianity today does not compare with any characterization of southerners as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers or traitors. Christians today don’t own slaves. Christians don’t advocate whipping, beating, cutting off toes or any type of violence on rebellious slaves. Christians today are called racist and hatemongers for having scriptural convictions against homosexuality, for opposing abortion, and for opposing the welfare state that is bankrupting the country.
Southerners owned slaves. Southerners whipped, beat, cut off toes, and separated families without any consideration for their feelings. If that isn’t racist and hateful, then nothing is. (Not all slave owners treated their slaves this way; Washington, Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee for example, but many of them did treat their slaves this way.) Slave auctions were humiliating, cruel, horrible events. No Christian today is espousing anything that is in any way like that. To compare the denial of First Amendment rights of Christians today because of their conscientious, religious beliefs, or patriots because of their love of country and the Constitution with the movement to end a hideous, racist practice defended by southerners is farcical.
Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!
This paragraph is based on two false assumptions; first, that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans were the only ones denying states the right to secede, and second, that the right to declare independence from England equals the right to secede from the Union. Both do not have to be right, and both are not right.
The Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in order to Form a more perfect Union....” It’s not a union if you can walk away from it. There were many who held that argument from 1789 all the way to 1860. The 1830 Webster-Hayne debate over nullification hinged on the right to secede. Webster destroyed Haynes arguments in the debate. He, Henry Clay, and many others were a voice for union for over fifty years, as was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina until it became more convenient for him to switch sides.
The problems of the colonists were myriad. Their free trade overseas was restricted and they were being taxed excessively, and without representation, to pay for the Crown’s foreign wars. British troops were quartered in colonial homes without compensating the owners. They were confiscating weapons and powder, which the colonists desperately needed for their own protection. And as a final insult, in November 1775, the King decreed the Prohibitory Act, which stated that the colonies had been put out from under Crown protection. Essentially, the King set the colonists free, and left an occupying army in their homes. You can read it all in the Declaration of Independence. That’s a far cry from the secessionist argument in 1861. Furthermore, the Declaration acknowledged that all men are created equal, but as Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855, it was practically read to say that all men are created equal except for the Negroes. To celebrate the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves or defending the practice of slavery is hypocrisy!
In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.
The State of Maryland was a border state that sent troops to both sides during the war. It was up for grabs which way the state may have gone if it had voted on secession. If it had gone to the South, Washington City would have been completely surrounded by states in rebellion. That’s the key to Lincoln’s actions. The South had already rebelled. The Battle of Bull Run had already been fought. A war was on. Part of Lincoln’s strategy for winning the war was to hold onto the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. Maryland’s case was the most precarious, and it had to be done.
The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in case of Rebellion or Invasion when the public safety requires it. What do you think the Civil War was? It was a rebellion, and public safety was endangered. The first deaths by hostile action in the war took place on April 19, 1861 when a mob of Confederate sympathizers in Baltimore attacked a Massachusetts militia that was on its way to Washington. The break down of law and order to include murder certainly endangered the public safety.
And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.
More than that, all of New England threatened to secede in 1807 during Jefferson’s administration, at which time John C. Calhoun was one of the most adamant opponents of secession.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.
Wrong. Lincoln did preserve the Union. We are one nation today because of Lincoln. Every state in the Union, Southern, Northern, or Western has the same rights under the Constitution that every other state has. No state or group of states is subjugating any other state or group of states. Yes, the Obama administration and federal bureaucracies are stepping on the rights of the people and the states, but it is an equal opportunity tyranny. Everyone is being oppressed equally. Southern states are not being singled out. (Obviously I’m against this and not defending it!)
In 1789 the Union was voluntary, but this comparison with marriage is another straw man. God didn’t recognize the “right” of anybody to divorce. He only allowed it in cases that involved adultery (Matthew 19:7-9), in other words, because of sin. So if you’re going to play that game, I suggest that the one who was holding and abusing the free rights of men because of their skin color was the partner in sin. In that case, the attempt at a divorce by the South would not have been recognized as legitimate. The point is this is a foolish argument to make. It doesn’t hold water.
People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.
This is another false argument. I am honestly surprised that Megyn Kelly could be this irrational. Obviously no president would proclaim people free in China or anywhere else. It’s a false comparison. The question here is whether or not the Confederacy was actually an independent nation. The Civil War was in progress, but the North did not recognize it as a legitimate government. Neither did any other nation in the world. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war maneuver. Lincoln turned what had been a war to preserve the Union into a war to end slavery, and by taking that moral high ground no foreign power would recognize the Confederacy.
Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.
One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said: “Good help is hard to find these days.”
It’s hard to answer these two paragraphs without going into a long, tedious recalling of events, but this argument is likewise absurd. Lincoln made his position on slavery clear in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 and in his Cooper Union speech in 1860. He was against slavery, and opposed to the spread of slavery into the territories and future states. He publicly declared he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed because he had no constitutional power to do so. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure. In it he declared the slaves in the states still in rebellion to be freed. That he was unable to do anything about it until the states surrendered doesn’t make any difference. He did not free the slaves in the Border States because he wanted to keep them in the Union and was not about to do something to weaken that position. As for checking out slave owners in the north how about some documentation to help us find the information? Most Northern States had abolished slavery long before 1860. So the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t have to address them.
Yes, Lee owned slaves. He got them from his father-in-law. When his father-in-law died in 1856 he freed them. He also said when the war was over that it was a good thing that slavery was ended. Grant also got his slaves from his father-in-law, but he only managed them while he looked after the family farm. They were not his to sell or free. He only owned one himself. He bought a slave named William Jones from his father-in-law. In 1859, at a time when Grant's store failed and he was about to go bankrupt, he set his slave free, even though he desperately could have used the money if he had sold him. Paints a little different picture doesn’t it?
The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.
Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”
You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
Once again, Lincoln was doing everything he could to keep the Southern States in the Union. He pled with them over and again to understand he had no plan to interfere with the institution of slavery where it existed. He believed that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to let slavery die out on its own, and in the interest of preserving the Union he was willing to let it happen that way. Let that sink in. Lincoln was a Constitutionalist. He had no plan of treading on the rights of any state, but he did have an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which at least implies the preservation of the Union. He also made that clear in his First Inaugural Address.
The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”
Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln; and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!
Exactly. That is the question. Why would they do it? It didn’t make any sense. But that’s what happened, and to deny that slavery had anything to do with it is plain ignorance. The entire Southern economy was based on slave labor. The tariffs that were abominations ran the price of cotton up on world markets, which in turn hurt the slave industry. Did you never hear of King Cotton? The cotton crop depended on slaves. High tariffs made it difficult for slave owners to keep their slaves and operate their plantations on slave labor.
Furthermore, after Lincoln was elected, a group of Secessionist Commissioners crisscrossed the South stirring up crowds and legislatures by declaring that Lincoln was going to end slavery and therefore the only option was to secede. They drummed up support for secession and their whole argument was slavery. It was after the war when the Confederate Vice President, Alexander Stephens, made the case that the war was over State’s Rights. It is true. It was about states' rights, but the only right they were willing to fight for was the right to own slaves.
The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.
There is no argument with this point; Washington keeps raising taxes on prosperous Americans today. As for the South paying 70% of the nation’s taxes in 1861, that’s a little hard to swallow. There were 22 million Americans in the North, and only 5 million non-slaves in the South. One fifth of the population paying 70% of the taxes? Documentation?
Before the war the South was prosperous and productive, yes. But what most people don’t realize is that cotton depletes the soil of minerals faster than other cash crops, and by 1860 many in the South were producing less as the soil became less fertile. They were looking for new places to go with their slave labor to plant cotton. That’s why Lincoln’s purpose of preventing the spread of slavery to the territories was anathema to them. Lincoln said he would do nothing about slavery where it existed because he had no constitutional authority to do so. But he did believe he could prevent it from spreading because the intent of the Founders was to let slavery die a slow death on its own. Many, even southerners, believed that in another ten years the institution of slavery would have been too costly and not productive enough to sustain. Lincoln was determined to let that happen. That’s what made the South willing to fight to the death for State's Rights. It all had to do with slavery and it was irrational.
This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!
No, it’s not even close to the same story. The colonists’ complaint was that they were taxed with no one to represent them in Parliament. Remember the battle cry? “No taxation without representation.” The South had Representatives and two Senators from each state in Congress to represent them. There is no comparison.
In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861: “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”
What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.
Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.
Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens, who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this: “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.
Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
So? Granted. That’s not even contested. Lincoln said in his first inaugural that he had a constitutional oath to preserve the Union. Obviously that’s what the North went to war for. Slavery became an issue as a war measure. The South went to war over State’s Rights, or so they said after the war was over. The inescapable truth, however, is that the only State’s Right they were willing to go to war over was the right to slavery. Every other issue they had problems with could have been resolved in Congress. In fact, if they had left well enough alone, the slavery problem would have ended in its own time as the cotton industry became less and less lucrative.
The idea that the Confederate flag (actually, there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.
On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”
Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.
That’s just plain unfair and it’s unreasonable. The majority of white people in the nation likely were not in favor of citizenship for the freedmen. The point Lincoln was trying to make was simply that because they lacked education and opportunity, and since racial prejudice would still be high when they were freed, they would not be on an equal standing with white people. They would be at a disadvantage when they were free. They would suddenly not have a place to live, and they would have no money to sustain them, and since the vast majority of them were still in the racist South they would likely have a hard time getting employment.
Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech: “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”
Again, I think Lincoln was just trying to face the reality of the times. It says nothing about him being a racist.
Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?
Well, at this point this diatribe against Lincoln is becoming irrational as well as audacious. The end result of the war, regardless of how Lincoln prosecuted it, preserved the Union, which was his primary goal, and a secondary benefit was that it freed the slaves. To smear Lincoln as a white supremacist when 395,000 families in the South owned 3.9 million slaves, and included such stalwarts of hatred as Bedford Forest, who founded the Ku Klux Klan, is yellow journalism at its best and far below the standard of excellence we have come to expect from Megyn Kelly.
It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.
They could more likely come to this conclusion by studying the Constitution and taking note of how it is being trampled on by Obama.
By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.
Lincoln penned his proclamation 17 months after Ft. Sumter and issued it three months later. Northern fighting men had as much acumen as southern soldiers; they just didn’t have good leadership early in the war, at least not in the East.
I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?
I’ve seen God’s and Generals and I agree. It is excellent.
That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”
True, it was not by strict definition a “civil war,” but Kelly seems to forget that the South fired the first shot. A more fitting name might be “The War of Southern Rebellion.”
Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle …
Well, what I’ve seen of this email makes me want to see the rest of it, but this is as far as it goes and I can't find the rest of it, so I’ll have to stop. I do find it interesting, however, that those who defend the racist slave policy of the South often refer to Bull Run as the first battle of the war. The first battle took place at Ft. Sumpter when a ragtag southern army under the command of Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard attacked the Federal installation. The first shot was fired by a South Carolina firebrand representative named Edmund Ruffin.
To tell you the truth I’m disappointed at this rant by Megyn Kelly. She pulls out all the plugs to sound just like a liberal journalist and make a revisionist historical argument by slamming Lincoln and Grant as white supremacist racists, while saying nothing about the hundreds of thousands of slave owners including nearly everybody in the Confederate government. That’s the same tactic leftists use when they blame Christians for the Crusades and immediately blame every terrorist act on right-wing extremists while giving a pass to Muslim terrorists. And for what? To call for the raising of the Confederate flag? She could have done that without this tirade.
Ironically, I agree with Kelly that we ought not lower Confederate flags. Taking them down is a symbolic gesture that accomplishes nothing but drive racism and encourage more foolishness from simple-minded people who have nothing better to do than be offended. The Confederate flag exists as a reminder of a period of time in our history and it hurts nothing and nobody.
POSTED ON JULY 9, 2015 BY MEGYN KELLY
The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.
Yes, we are seeing tyranny materializing before our eyes, but there is no comparison with what is happening in the United States today with what happened prior to the Civil War. The issue in the early 1800s was cotton and the slave industry used to produce it. The tariff of abominations concerned the trade of cotton overseas, but affected nobody’s freedom. The abolitionist movement in the North agitated to end slavery, but nobody ever denied a southerner freedom of expression, association, speech or conscience. Attempts to help slaves escape through the Underground Railroad were met with the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision forcing all freed slaves caught in the North to be returned to their owners. That is hardly tyranny.
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.
Yes, truer words have been spoken. Confederate veterans were never subject to derision. They were actually treated with respect at the surrenders. When the war was over veterans on both sides were honored for their valor. Fifty years after Gettysburg at one of the last reunions Union and Confederate veterans sat side by side and shook hands. When the war was over Northern teachers did not invade the South to teach in all their schools. Authors on both sides of the conflict have written plenty of books to argue their case and nobody has prevented southern apologists from being published. The problem in public school education today is that the issue has been too simplified and not well discussed.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.
This is a straw man argument. The liberal attack against Christianity today does not compare with any characterization of southerners as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers or traitors. Christians today don’t own slaves. Christians don’t advocate whipping, beating, cutting off toes or any type of violence on rebellious slaves. Christians today are called racist and hatemongers for having scriptural convictions against homosexuality, for opposing abortion, and for opposing the welfare state that is bankrupting the country.
Southerners owned slaves. Southerners whipped, beat, cut off toes, and separated families without any consideration for their feelings. If that isn’t racist and hateful, then nothing is. (Not all slave owners treated their slaves this way; Washington, Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee for example, but many of them did treat their slaves this way.) Slave auctions were humiliating, cruel, horrible events. No Christian today is espousing anything that is in any way like that. To compare the denial of First Amendment rights of Christians today because of their conscientious, religious beliefs, or patriots because of their love of country and the Constitution with the movement to end a hideous, racist practice defended by southerners is farcical.
Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!
This paragraph is based on two false assumptions; first, that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans were the only ones denying states the right to secede, and second, that the right to declare independence from England equals the right to secede from the Union. Both do not have to be right, and both are not right.
The Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in order to Form a more perfect Union....” It’s not a union if you can walk away from it. There were many who held that argument from 1789 all the way to 1860. The 1830 Webster-Hayne debate over nullification hinged on the right to secede. Webster destroyed Haynes arguments in the debate. He, Henry Clay, and many others were a voice for union for over fifty years, as was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina until it became more convenient for him to switch sides.
The problems of the colonists were myriad. Their free trade overseas was restricted and they were being taxed excessively, and without representation, to pay for the Crown’s foreign wars. British troops were quartered in colonial homes without compensating the owners. They were confiscating weapons and powder, which the colonists desperately needed for their own protection. And as a final insult, in November 1775, the King decreed the Prohibitory Act, which stated that the colonies had been put out from under Crown protection. Essentially, the King set the colonists free, and left an occupying army in their homes. You can read it all in the Declaration of Independence. That’s a far cry from the secessionist argument in 1861. Furthermore, the Declaration acknowledged that all men are created equal, but as Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855, it was practically read to say that all men are created equal except for the Negroes. To celebrate the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves or defending the practice of slavery is hypocrisy!
In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.
The State of Maryland was a border state that sent troops to both sides during the war. It was up for grabs which way the state may have gone if it had voted on secession. If it had gone to the South, Washington City would have been completely surrounded by states in rebellion. That’s the key to Lincoln’s actions. The South had already rebelled. The Battle of Bull Run had already been fought. A war was on. Part of Lincoln’s strategy for winning the war was to hold onto the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. Maryland’s case was the most precarious, and it had to be done.
The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in case of Rebellion or Invasion when the public safety requires it. What do you think the Civil War was? It was a rebellion, and public safety was endangered. The first deaths by hostile action in the war took place on April 19, 1861 when a mob of Confederate sympathizers in Baltimore attacked a Massachusetts militia that was on its way to Washington. The break down of law and order to include murder certainly endangered the public safety.
And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.
More than that, all of New England threatened to secede in 1807 during Jefferson’s administration, at which time John C. Calhoun was one of the most adamant opponents of secession.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.
Wrong. Lincoln did preserve the Union. We are one nation today because of Lincoln. Every state in the Union, Southern, Northern, or Western has the same rights under the Constitution that every other state has. No state or group of states is subjugating any other state or group of states. Yes, the Obama administration and federal bureaucracies are stepping on the rights of the people and the states, but it is an equal opportunity tyranny. Everyone is being oppressed equally. Southern states are not being singled out. (Obviously I’m against this and not defending it!)
In 1789 the Union was voluntary, but this comparison with marriage is another straw man. God didn’t recognize the “right” of anybody to divorce. He only allowed it in cases that involved adultery (Matthew 19:7-9), in other words, because of sin. So if you’re going to play that game, I suggest that the one who was holding and abusing the free rights of men because of their skin color was the partner in sin. In that case, the attempt at a divorce by the South would not have been recognized as legitimate. The point is this is a foolish argument to make. It doesn’t hold water.
People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.
This is another false argument. I am honestly surprised that Megyn Kelly could be this irrational. Obviously no president would proclaim people free in China or anywhere else. It’s a false comparison. The question here is whether or not the Confederacy was actually an independent nation. The Civil War was in progress, but the North did not recognize it as a legitimate government. Neither did any other nation in the world. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war maneuver. Lincoln turned what had been a war to preserve the Union into a war to end slavery, and by taking that moral high ground no foreign power would recognize the Confederacy.
Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.
One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said: “Good help is hard to find these days.”
It’s hard to answer these two paragraphs without going into a long, tedious recalling of events, but this argument is likewise absurd. Lincoln made his position on slavery clear in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 and in his Cooper Union speech in 1860. He was against slavery, and opposed to the spread of slavery into the territories and future states. He publicly declared he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed because he had no constitutional power to do so. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure. In it he declared the slaves in the states still in rebellion to be freed. That he was unable to do anything about it until the states surrendered doesn’t make any difference. He did not free the slaves in the Border States because he wanted to keep them in the Union and was not about to do something to weaken that position. As for checking out slave owners in the north how about some documentation to help us find the information? Most Northern States had abolished slavery long before 1860. So the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t have to address them.
Yes, Lee owned slaves. He got them from his father-in-law. When his father-in-law died in 1856 he freed them. He also said when the war was over that it was a good thing that slavery was ended. Grant also got his slaves from his father-in-law, but he only managed them while he looked after the family farm. They were not his to sell or free. He only owned one himself. He bought a slave named William Jones from his father-in-law. In 1859, at a time when Grant's store failed and he was about to go bankrupt, he set his slave free, even though he desperately could have used the money if he had sold him. Paints a little different picture doesn’t it?
The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.
Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”
You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
Once again, Lincoln was doing everything he could to keep the Southern States in the Union. He pled with them over and again to understand he had no plan to interfere with the institution of slavery where it existed. He believed that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to let slavery die out on its own, and in the interest of preserving the Union he was willing to let it happen that way. Let that sink in. Lincoln was a Constitutionalist. He had no plan of treading on the rights of any state, but he did have an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which at least implies the preservation of the Union. He also made that clear in his First Inaugural Address.
The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”
Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln; and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!
Exactly. That is the question. Why would they do it? It didn’t make any sense. But that’s what happened, and to deny that slavery had anything to do with it is plain ignorance. The entire Southern economy was based on slave labor. The tariffs that were abominations ran the price of cotton up on world markets, which in turn hurt the slave industry. Did you never hear of King Cotton? The cotton crop depended on slaves. High tariffs made it difficult for slave owners to keep their slaves and operate their plantations on slave labor.
Furthermore, after Lincoln was elected, a group of Secessionist Commissioners crisscrossed the South stirring up crowds and legislatures by declaring that Lincoln was going to end slavery and therefore the only option was to secede. They drummed up support for secession and their whole argument was slavery. It was after the war when the Confederate Vice President, Alexander Stephens, made the case that the war was over State’s Rights. It is true. It was about states' rights, but the only right they were willing to fight for was the right to own slaves.
The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.
There is no argument with this point; Washington keeps raising taxes on prosperous Americans today. As for the South paying 70% of the nation’s taxes in 1861, that’s a little hard to swallow. There were 22 million Americans in the North, and only 5 million non-slaves in the South. One fifth of the population paying 70% of the taxes? Documentation?
Before the war the South was prosperous and productive, yes. But what most people don’t realize is that cotton depletes the soil of minerals faster than other cash crops, and by 1860 many in the South were producing less as the soil became less fertile. They were looking for new places to go with their slave labor to plant cotton. That’s why Lincoln’s purpose of preventing the spread of slavery to the territories was anathema to them. Lincoln said he would do nothing about slavery where it existed because he had no constitutional authority to do so. But he did believe he could prevent it from spreading because the intent of the Founders was to let slavery die a slow death on its own. Many, even southerners, believed that in another ten years the institution of slavery would have been too costly and not productive enough to sustain. Lincoln was determined to let that happen. That’s what made the South willing to fight to the death for State's Rights. It all had to do with slavery and it was irrational.
This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!
No, it’s not even close to the same story. The colonists’ complaint was that they were taxed with no one to represent them in Parliament. Remember the battle cry? “No taxation without representation.” The South had Representatives and two Senators from each state in Congress to represent them. There is no comparison.
In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861: “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”
What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.
Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.
Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens, who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this: “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.
Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
So? Granted. That’s not even contested. Lincoln said in his first inaugural that he had a constitutional oath to preserve the Union. Obviously that’s what the North went to war for. Slavery became an issue as a war measure. The South went to war over State’s Rights, or so they said after the war was over. The inescapable truth, however, is that the only State’s Right they were willing to go to war over was the right to slavery. Every other issue they had problems with could have been resolved in Congress. In fact, if they had left well enough alone, the slavery problem would have ended in its own time as the cotton industry became less and less lucrative.
The idea that the Confederate flag (actually, there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.
On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”
Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.
That’s just plain unfair and it’s unreasonable. The majority of white people in the nation likely were not in favor of citizenship for the freedmen. The point Lincoln was trying to make was simply that because they lacked education and opportunity, and since racial prejudice would still be high when they were freed, they would not be on an equal standing with white people. They would be at a disadvantage when they were free. They would suddenly not have a place to live, and they would have no money to sustain them, and since the vast majority of them were still in the racist South they would likely have a hard time getting employment.
Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech: “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”
Again, I think Lincoln was just trying to face the reality of the times. It says nothing about him being a racist.
Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?
Well, at this point this diatribe against Lincoln is becoming irrational as well as audacious. The end result of the war, regardless of how Lincoln prosecuted it, preserved the Union, which was his primary goal, and a secondary benefit was that it freed the slaves. To smear Lincoln as a white supremacist when 395,000 families in the South owned 3.9 million slaves, and included such stalwarts of hatred as Bedford Forest, who founded the Ku Klux Klan, is yellow journalism at its best and far below the standard of excellence we have come to expect from Megyn Kelly.
It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.
They could more likely come to this conclusion by studying the Constitution and taking note of how it is being trampled on by Obama.
By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.
Lincoln penned his proclamation 17 months after Ft. Sumter and issued it three months later. Northern fighting men had as much acumen as southern soldiers; they just didn’t have good leadership early in the war, at least not in the East.
I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?
I’ve seen God’s and Generals and I agree. It is excellent.
That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”
True, it was not by strict definition a “civil war,” but Kelly seems to forget that the South fired the first shot. A more fitting name might be “The War of Southern Rebellion.”
Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle …
Well, what I’ve seen of this email makes me want to see the rest of it, but this is as far as it goes and I can't find the rest of it, so I’ll have to stop. I do find it interesting, however, that those who defend the racist slave policy of the South often refer to Bull Run as the first battle of the war. The first battle took place at Ft. Sumpter when a ragtag southern army under the command of Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard attacked the Federal installation. The first shot was fired by a South Carolina firebrand representative named Edmund Ruffin.
To tell you the truth I’m disappointed at this rant by Megyn Kelly. She pulls out all the plugs to sound just like a liberal journalist and make a revisionist historical argument by slamming Lincoln and Grant as white supremacist racists, while saying nothing about the hundreds of thousands of slave owners including nearly everybody in the Confederate government. That’s the same tactic leftists use when they blame Christians for the Crusades and immediately blame every terrorist act on right-wing extremists while giving a pass to Muslim terrorists. And for what? To call for the raising of the Confederate flag? She could have done that without this tirade.
Ironically, I agree with Kelly that we ought not lower Confederate flags. Taking them down is a symbolic gesture that accomplishes nothing but drive racism and encourage more foolishness from simple-minded people who have nothing better to do than be offended. The Confederate flag exists as a reminder of a period of time in our history and it hurts nothing and nobody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)