Nordskog Publishing Inc.

Publisher's Corner

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Why Politics is Necessary

by Gary DeMar

America is a mess, and we can include the world as well, because Christians, who say they have undergone a redemptive change, are keeping their personal transformation under wraps. There is fear by some Christian leaders that if Christians get involved in politics, the gospel message will be diluted. There are Christians who don’t get involved in politics and have moral lapses. Jimmy Swaggart comes to mind. It doesn’t seem to register with these same critics that our non-involvement does not enhance the spread of the gospel. It is not inevitable that Christians, once successful in the political realm, will get “blinded by might.”

Christians are still sinners and there are always pitfalls and dangers in any endeavor, even those distant from so-called worldly pursuits. The church is not a haven from corruption. Have you noticed how often Paul deals with problems within the church (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1–2; 6:1–11)? Paul knows the temptation that some have in lording “it over the faith” (2 Cor. 1:24). Corrupt leaders (1 Sam. 2:12–25) and “savage wolves” (Acts 20:29) are not exclusive to politics. The Church is no more immune to “power politics” than the State. Have you ever been in a congregational meeting to vote on what color the drapes in the library are going to be?

No one I know is claiming that government can save anyone or that politics is a substitute for the cross of Christ.1 The assumption of so many opposed to almost any kind of social activism by Christians is the belief that social activism must always be preceded by gospel proclamation. Must we wait until pro-abortionists become Christians before we can pass laws outlawing abortion? I just heard recently from one critic who said that all we need to do is love people. I’m all for that. But while I’m loving my enemy, I still have my guard up. Jesus was the epitome of love. He healed people, fed thousands, and forgave sins. Still, He was crucified.

Ultimately, Christians who are faithful to the demands of the gospel, without the need of coercion or special laws, will make society better for everyone. As Michael Novak, holder of the Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, observes, “When there are 250 million consciences on guard, it is surprising how few police are needed on the streets.”2 But right now we do not have 250 million consciences on guard, and until we do, certain precautions need to be taken because of the sinful nature of man. Our founding fathers understood this. John Adams wrote:
The moral government of God, and his viceregent, Conscience, ought to be sufficient to restrain men to obedience, to justice, and benevolence at all times and in all places; we must therefore descend from the dignity of our nature when we think of civil government at all. But the nature of mankind is one thing, and the reason of mankind another; and the first has the same relation to the last as the whole to a part. The passions and appetites are parts of human nature as well as reason and the moral sense. In the institution of government it must be remembered that, although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be.3
At this point in time, Christians are out of necessity playing defense, and this means politics is a necessary endeavor. We are like Peter of Haarlem, the lockkeeper’s son who stuck his finger in a dike when he saw that his town was threatened by flood waters. Peter could have gone about preaching the gospel, but at the moment, the town needed to be saved from an impending disaster. We are in a similar situation. We are about to be overwhelmed by a flood of governmental oppression.

The Christian faith and Christians are under attack. The day may come, because of our self-imposed silence, that we will be forced to be silent as a matter of law. Then what will we do?
Footnotes:
  1. Edwin W. Lutzer, Why the Cross Can Do What Politics Can't (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1999).
  2. Michael Novak, "The Causes of Virtue" (a speech given in Washington, D.C., January 31, 1994). Quoted in Charles Colson, Justice that Restores: Why Our Justice System Doesn't Work and the Only Method of True Reform (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishers, 2001), 105.
  3. John Adams. Cited by Michael Novak, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2002), 49.
Originally published on visiontoamerica.org.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 8, 2010

Foreword to Apostle of Liberty: The World-Changing Leadership of George Washington

by David J. Vaughan
David J. VaughnDuring a recent trip to Mount Vernon, my wife and I visited the nearby gift shop. As I browsed through the many books on Washington and colonial life, I was struck by the lack of attention given to Washington's religious faith. Only a few books seemed to suggest that religion was an important part of Washington’s life. Most suggested that he was either a deist or a lukewarm Anglican whose religion was primarily for public consumption.

For instance, historian Gordon Wood stated: “It is true that many of the distinguished political leaders of the Revolution were not very emotionally religious. At best, they only passively believed in organized Christianity and at worst they scorned or ridiculed it. Most were deists or lukewarm churchgoers and scornful of religious emotion and enthusiasm. Washington, for example, was a frequent churchgoer, but he scarcely referred to God as anything but ‘the Great Disposer of events’ and in all his voluminous papers he never mentioned Jesus Christ." Such is the accepted wisdom' of the academy.

What is shocking about this statement however is that everything asserted here is either false or only partly true. First Washington and the other Founders were predominantly religious men. Of the fifty-two delegates to the Constitutional Convention, twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, and there were two each of Congregationalists, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Methodists, and Roman Catholics. Oh yes, there were three deists—at best. Washington, of course, was an Episcopalian his entire Life, regularly attended church, served as a vestryman (church trustee) and regularly donated generous sums to support a number of churches. While in the military, he often conducted worship services when a chaplain was not available. This is hardly a “passive” belief in organized Christianity.

Not only did Washington never scorn or ridicule Christianity, but while serving in the military he would not permit any under his command to show the least disrespect for God or Christianity. As he said in a September 14, 1775 letter to Col. Benedict Arnold: “I also give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of The Religion of the Country [Canada] and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy and a true Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with compassion upon their Errors [in doctrine] without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men and to him only in this Case, they are answerable.”

While Washington observed his religious duties, he encouraged his troops do likewise. Consider his general order for May 15 1776: “The general commands all officers, and soldiers, to pay strict obedience to the Orders of the Continental Congress and by their unfeigned, and pious observance of their religious duties, incline the Lord, and Giver of Victory, to prosper our arms."

Notice Washington's use of “Lord” and “Giver of Victory.” Throughout his writings and speeches, Washington used a variety of names for God (not simply Wood’s claim of “Great Disposer of Events”) including “Almighty,” “Almighty God,” “Father of All Mercies,” “Creator,” “Gracious God,” “Jehovah,” “Lord” (Sic.) and “Wonder-working Deity.” And, oh, yes, he called God “Jesus Christ.” In a May 22, 1779, speech to the Delaware chiefs Washington said: “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life and above all the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”

As for Washington's lack of religious emotion (that is the claim that he was “lukewarm”), one does not have to be a fanatic to be sincere. In fact, not only was his denomination High Church, but Washington was also temperamentally reserved. In addition, he was a polished gentleman who believed excessive displays of emotion (about anything not just religion) were an inappropriate breach of decorum. Washington actually tried to live by the rules of civility that he penned as a young man. Religious emotion (a better word is conviction) need not be extreme to be deep and sincere. As Chief Justice John Marshall who knew Washington, said: “Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man.”

That a secular historian, who has no personal experience of religious faith should presume to judge the depth of a man’s religious devotion is a very telling example of humanistic hubris. Yet it only goes to show that in history, as in love, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, we often see that which is most agreeable to our own inclinations. So I suppose given the secular bent of the modern (or should I say postmodern) intellectual class we should not be surprised that Washington’s religious faith is often downplayed or ignored.

Thankfully, however we have Stephen McDowell’s work in hand to set Washington’s religious faith in the context of his multifaceted life. You will discover that from his earlier days as a surveyor, to his military career, to his attainment of the highest office in the land Washington was guided by a profoundly religious view of life. He not only attended church, but Washington faithfully performed private devotions where he meditated on the Scriptures and prayed while on his knees (not very lukewarm to me). He sought God’s guidance and protection, and from all the accounts of his military battles, he received it. He sought God’s glory, and from his example as a gentleman, a statesman, and a Christian, he rendered it.

Contrary to the false picture of Washington that now prevails in the academy, through reading McDowell, you will come to know and honor the Washington that our forefathers knew and loved. And knowing him, you will have before you one of the finest examples of leadership the world has ever known—an example worthy of both your admiration and emulation. As Abigail Adams said of him: “No man ever lived more deservedly beloved and respected...If we look through the whole tenor of his Life, History will not produce to us a Parallel.”

Copyright © 2007. Used by permission.

Labels: ,

Monday, January 25, 2010

Proposed Early Draft of Affirmations & Denials for: God’s Law for All Societies; Document #23

by the Theological Committee of the International Church Council Project
  1. WE AFFIRM that the Moral Law of God is a reflection of God’s holy, righteous and good nature and that these laws were written upon the hearts of mankind from the Garden and therefore apply to all of Adam’s descendants. These laws were later codified in the Ten Commandments and the case laws which are applications and extensions of the Ten Commandments.

    WE DENY that the Moral Law was not in effect prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments through Moses. We further deny that the Ten Commandments apply to only a portion of the human race.
  2. WE AFFIRM that God gave His Laws for all mankind in the Bible by means of inerrant, verbal inspiration and that those written Laws are absolute and universal and therefore are to be obeyed by all mankind. They apply to Christians, to unbelievers and to all social orders in all places at all times. Man is required always and everywhere to reverence God and obey His Law Word.

    WE DENY that God intends His Laws in the Bible to apply only to Jews or Christians or to those who chose to obey those biblical laws. We further deny that there is any “neutral ground” in this universe where mankind may stand without being always and absolutely accountable to his Creator and under obligation to humble himself before God in the obedience of faith and worship.
  3. WE AFFIRM that God’s Law applies to Christians, not as a basis for justification, but as the standard within which the justified-by-faith Christian lives when he lives in love, for “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). We further affirm that the Law of God applies to the unbeliever as the continuing and eternal standard for all morality and justice because God’s Law reflects God’s own, unchanging moral character, and all of Adam’s descendents have that Law of God written upon their hearts (Rom. 2:14).

    WE DENY that God’s Law is not God’s required standard for the societies of all cultures of every nation because that Law is the moral requirement for every individual everywhere at all times and there cannot be a different moral requirement for the social order in which all those individuals live.
  4. WE AFFIRM that the points of morality, justice and social order, which any society institutes into its civil codes of law, flow directly out of the religion and worldview of the leaders who are in power, and out of their designated influencers of that society.

    WE DENY that civil laws do or can flow out of neutral, objective, non-religious sources or are uninfluenced by the worldview of the leaders of said society.
  5. WE AFFIRM that the basic foundations of God’s Law in the Bible are set forth in His Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), and those Ten Commandments are explained, expanded and applied in what is called the biblical “case laws” and in passages such as Chapters 21, 22 and 23 in Exodus.1 We further affirm that Western Civilization with its attending social, financial, scientific, and juridical benefits owes its formation and development to the Christian’s Bible and to Christian society’s commitment over the centuries to basing their societies laws upon the Ten Commandments which was the case in the development of the English “Common Law.”

    WE DENY that an individual or society can remain strong, just, prosperous, creative or rational when that society ignores or hates the God of the Bible or disobeys His biblical commandments. History testifies profusely to the truth of this statement.
  6. WE AFFIRM that there is a distinctive and identifiable Christian worldview. This Christian worldview includes a distinctive and identifiable Christian view of law, and that at the heart of these Christian views stands the Almighty Sovereign God of the Universe, who reveals Himself most clearly and completely in the Bible.

    WE DENY that there is no distinctive, identifiable Christian worldview or view of law, and that any views are authentically Christian if they center on anything other than the Almighty Sovereign God of the Universe revealed in the Bible.2
  7. WE AFFIRM that a society inevitably must choose between conflicting legal foundations and views of law and should choose Christian views and a Christian foundation because the Christian system is vastly superior to all alternatives: it is empirically defensible, internally logical, [and] comprehensive in scope.

    WE DENY that a society may avoid choosing between conflicting legal foundations and views of law, and that any non-Christian system is superior or equal to the Christian system.3
  8. WE AFFIRM that it is the vital and unavoidable responsibility of the true Christian community in every society to seek, in every Biblically consistent way, to hold its society’s views of law true to Biblical principles, and that when societies choose non-Christian views of law they can expect little long-term blessing from God and many severely adverse consequences.

    WE DENY that the Christian community properly fulfills its calling to make disciples of every nation and to be salt and light to the world when it fails to do all in its power to hold society’s views of law true to Biblical principles.4

  9. WE AFFIRM that the rejection or reduction of God’s Laws in the Bible is probably the most debilitating defect in the Body of Christ today and is the primary issue that has tragically reduced a majority of the Church to her present condition of being materialistic, self-serving, theologically confused, irrelevant, culturally impotent and antinomian.

    WE DENY that any individual Christian, mission organization or church is pleasing to God or is biblically fulfilling Christ’s Great Commission if they are not insisting in their gospel presentation that God requires Christians to live in obedience to the commands in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments (including but not limited to the Ten Commandments), and insisting that one’s true love for Christ, His Church and the advancement of His Kingdom on earth is measured by that Christian’s daily walk of obedience to the Bible more than mere “Christian talk” or the attainment of great theological learning.

  10. WE AFFIRM that antinomianism (the disregard or dismissal of God’s Law as being applicable to people today) is a modern day curse and sickness within many professed, Bible-believing churches. Antinomianism must be corrected before such churches can accomplish their God-appointed destinies in fulfilling the Great Commission, and thus bringing forth God’s Kingdom on earth in all areas of society to whatever degree this may be accomplish before Christ’s return.

    WE DENY that the following antinomian statements are biblical or are beneficial to the Church or to any society but rather that these false beliefs are demonic, destructive and damnable:


    1. Old Testament laws and principles do not carry over into the New Testament period.
    2. Some of the Old Testament moral laws and principles stand in opposition to the moral laws and principles of the New Testament or participate in some kind of “inferior” type of spirituality and morality.
    3. The 'Law of Christ' is substantially different than the Old Testament moral law.
    4. It is not God’s intention that either the Old Testament’s or the New Testament’s moral laws and principles should be institutionalized into civil law for any and all societies on earth today.
    5. My personal understanding and sense of right and wrong (enlightened by my understanding of how the Holy Spirit is guiding my life) is a superior guide regarding morality and law (what is right and wrong) than any written text in the Bible.

  11. WE AFFIRM that all commands in the Old Testament are to be “Maintained unless Modified” by the New Testament (such as the sacrificial and dietary laws which have been so changed).
    WE DENY that laws in the Old Testament are “Rescinded unless Repeated” in the New Testament.

  12. WE AFFIRM that the sovereign God providentially directs the course of human history, including civil law, which is a vital part of that history and requires that civil law conform to His standards; that with the consummation of history, including legal history, will come the final, eternal triumph of God’s Law, when eternal, universal, and perfect justice will prevail; and that this assurance gives Christians today ultimate hope even in the midst of the rampant violations of God’s Law in today’s world and imparts real meaning and eternal significance to man’s response to God’s Law in this present life.

    WE DENY that history, including legal history, is a merely purposeless sequence of events; that the pattern and purposes of history deviate from what the Sovereign God has ordained; that there will be no final, eternal triumph of God’s Law; and that eternal, universal, and perfect justice will never prevail.5

    Copyright © 2010. Used with permission of the International Church Council Project.


    1. An example of the Ten Commandments being further defined is Deut. 19:4-13 wherein the case law there defines “You shall not murder” as being neither an accidental killing nor capital punishment.
    2. Christian Worldview of Law, Coalition on Revival, 1989. Article 2 Affirmation & Denial word for word.
    3. Christian Worldview of Law, Coalition on Revival, 1989. Article 3 Affirmation & Denial word for word.
    4. Christian Worldview of Law, Coalition on Revival, 1989. Article 5 Affirmation & Denial word for word.
    5. Christian Worldview of Law, Coalition on Revival, 1989. Article 6 Affirmation & Denial word for word.

Labels: , , ,

GOD’S LAW FOR ALL SOCIETIES: “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.”*

by Eugene Clingman

 “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2*). And, “When the righteous rejoice, there is great glory; But when the wicked arise, men hide themselves” (Proverbs 28:12). It is clear from these two verses that God speaks to societal issues. Two things are evident in our society today – The righteous are not in authority, and wicked men have arisen. What is the answer? The answer is for the Church to return to God’s Law and to lead the nation to return to God’s Law. I am not talking about becoming justified or made righteous through the Law; it cannot be done; righteousness is obtained through faith in Christ and His atoning work. What I am talking about is the fact that the Law, written upon the heart of New Covenant people (Christians according to Jeremiah 31:31) is the standard of righteousness God requires for individual and nation. The Christian standard of the Law is love, and love is the fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13:10), but love is never less than the requirements of the Law. In other words we cannot say, “I am walking in love, therefore the Law does not apply to me.” But we may say, “I am walking in love which causes me to fulfill the Law and more besides. And if I fail to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law, it is evidence that I am not walking in love – I have failed to attain in my actions, speech or thoughts that standard God has written upon my New Covenant heart. Clearly, the standard of the Law is never discarded or abrogated, and even when one is walking in love it is fulfilled, never set aside.

The Law cannot be discarded because it is a reflection of the righteous character of God. And God’s righteous character does not fluctuate and is never altered. Because His Law is a reflection of His righteous character, His Law is the standard required of all human beings. The Church has often failed to comprehend these things. The Law is often set aside in Evangelical circles and considered of no account for the Christian, and because it is of no account for the Christian, it is also, in their minds, of no account for the general culture. This is wrong thinking!

Because the Law of God was written upon the heart of man from the beginning of creation (Romans 2:14-15), upon Adam and his descendents, it pertains to every human being, and because to every human being individually, to every collection of human beings, and because to every collection of human beings, to every nation. There is one standard and only one.

In the Great Commission Christ told His Church to make disciples of all the nations – “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Jesus gave a New Commandment – Love one another. We know that “Love is the fulfillment of the Law” (Romans 13:10). As we live life and as we disciple the nations let us remember the primary directive given us – teaching them to obey all things I have commanded you. Let us remember that this includes Love one another which in turn includes obedience to the Law of God, for love is not the setting aside of the Law, but the fulfillment of it. Every individual, every human institution, and every nation must be taught to love, which means also that they must be taught to obey the law of God, for if they do not obey the Law of God, it is irrefutable evidence that they do not yet love and are not yet Christ's disciples.

2 John 1:6 – “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.”
Eugene Clingman is Executive Director of the International Church Council Project, an outreach ministry of the Coalition on Revival. Eugene is a frequent contributor to the Publisher’s Corner, and contributes to Nordskog Publishing in our marketing department.

* All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2010. Used with permission.

Labels: ,

Monday, December 28, 2009

Fort Hood & Separation of Mosque and State

by William J. Federer

Everyone has heard of "Separation of Church & State," but what about "Separation of Mosque & State"?

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan yelled "Allahu Akhbar," Arabic for "Allah is great," before killing 13 and wounding 31 at Fort Hood, Texas.

He had praised Muslim suicide bombers on the Internet; refused, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; listed his nationality as "Palestinian"; dressed as a fundamentalist Muslim when not in uniform and attended the same Mosque as the 911 terrorists.

Some question if Hasan's killing of U.S. soldiers was motivated by his belief in Islam.

But before we condemn as "hateful" those who dare ask such a question, it should be determined what is meant by the term "Islam."

Is Islam:
  1. a religious system,
  2. a political system, or
  3. a military system?
The answer is all three, as Mohammed was:
  1. a religious leader,
  2. a political leader, and
  3. a military leader.
One may ask, what relevance does Mohammed's life 1400 years ago have to us today?
Well, since Mohammad was the best Muslim, those striving to be better Muslims are trying to imitate him, just as Christians try to imitate Jesus, as in 'WWJD: What Would Jesus Do'.
Mohammed's life is called "the Sunna," which means "the way," or "the example."
By examining Mohammed's life, one gains insight into the motivations of his followers.
  1. Mohammed was a religious leader in Mecca for 12 years, beginning in 610AD, making around 100 converts. When he became confrontational and threatening, the Meccans chased him out in 622AD.

  2. Claiming to be a victim of harassment, Mohammed fled 200 miles north to the predominantly Jewish city of Medina. The Jews rejected Mohammed, so he went into the minority pagan neighborhoods where he made converts, gained a political following, and in a sense, acted as a community organizer.

    With his new following, he went back to the Jews as a candidate of change, promising to be objective and fair as he was a newcomer to the city's heated partisan politics.

    The Jews made a treaty and Mohammed became a political leader in Medina.

  3. When Mohammed's followers back in Mecca began to threaten the city's political stability, they were chased out and their houses were confiscated. Fleeing as victims to Medina, Mohammed permitted them to rob the caravans headed to Mecca in retaliation for their harassment.
The Meccans then sent 1000 soldiers to protect their caravans, and Mohammed, with just 300, defeated them at the Battle of Badr in 624AD. This amazing victory, being outnumbered 3 to 1, convinced Mohammed he was to be a military leader. He won 66 battles and raids in the next 8 years before he died.

Mohammed even sent his warrior, Abdullah, in 625AD, to lie in order to infiltrate the military base of his enemy, chief Sofyan ibn Khalid. Abdullah convinced Sofyan of his loyalty, so Sofyan let down his guard. When the moment was right, Abdullah committed a terrorist attack, beheading Sofyan.

Since Mohammed was the best Muslim, those wanting to be better Muslims gravitate to following his example, religiously, politically...and militarily.

Most Americans do not care what religion someone has, or in which direction someone prays, or if someone believes in a paradise with 72 virgins.

But what Americans do care about is if their political freedom of speech is taken away; if their wives and daughters are threatened if not veiled; if nations, such as Israel, face extinction; or if terrorists attack their military bases.

It is political/military Islam that concerns Americans, not the religion of Islam.

When a political/military Muslim bows toward Mecca, he is effectively pledging allegiance to something other than the United States.

For the sake of discussion, let us not be concerned with religious Islam, and, for the moment, just examine political/military Islam.

Political/military Islam has two features:
  1. A global conquest aspect, and
  2. Wherever it takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims.
THE QUESTION IS:

What other political/military systems has America had to face in the last 60 years that had:
  1. A global conquest aspect, and
  2. Wherever they took over, non-adherents were not equal to adherents?
Beginning in the 1930's, Americans had to say: "We love Germans, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Nazism."

Why? Because it had a global conquest aspect and wherever it took over, non-Nazis, like Jews, were not equal.

During World War II, Americans had to say - "We love Japanese, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Hirohito's Imperialism," and "We love Italians, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Mussolini's Fascism."

During the Cold War, Americans had to say: "We love Russians, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Stalin and Khrushchev's Soviet Communism."

Americans had to say: "We love North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Chinese, but we have to identify and resist the Communist political/military systems of Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.

Why? Because Communism has a global conquest aspect and wherever it takes over, non-Communists are not equal.

Today, Americans love Arabs, Indonesians, Turks and Egyptians, but Americans have to identify and resist the political/military system of Islam.

Why?
  1. It has a global conquest aspect, and
  2. Wherever Islam takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims.
Political/military Islam, though, has been harder to identify and resist, as it can advance under the cloak of religion.

Could it be that some Muslims with a political/military agenda are taking advantage of the freedom extended to Muslims who are simply practicing the religion of Islam?

In order to prevent more tragic episodes as the killings at Fort Hood, maybe a little more attention should be given to the separation of Mosque and State.

© 2009, used with permission.

Labels: ,

Monday, December 14, 2009

That "Miracle Message"

by Annette Adams
Yes, it's time for that "Miracle Message" again:
"God really came down to this earth!"
'Didn't come like a king, rather did everything
To humble Himself in His birth.
God's love con-descended, estrangement was ended,
We all could become reconciled.
Though we were sin-blighted, His death re-united
Us to this great God-in-Christ-Child.
From manger to man covered such a short span,
But His presence we never shall lack.
For His promise: "I won't ever leave you"
Remains till the time He comes back.
His Spirit left with us, will lovingly give us
His peace when those troubles surround us.
His Word will renew us and keep Him close to us,
So "life will abound"—not confound us.
Yes, it's time for that "Miracle Message" again;
Those sweet Christmas bells can still toll;
And we can yet sing to our Savior and King,
For He's still—if you will—in control!
(1 Corinthians 5: 19 "... God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. .. '')
12/25/09

© 2009.  Used with permission.

Labels: , ,

A CHRISTMAS STORY

by Paul Myrant

I want to tell you a Christmas Story – a short, yet long kind of story; a story from long ago. 
Now it’s not the story you’re thinking of, that happened so long ago.
No, this story took place a long, long, longgg time ago!

The twentieth century was full of great things:
We walked on the moon and watched from afar, we flew here and there and drove in a car.
We spoke through a wire and floated in space; but this story happened in a much different place.

There are great events in the ages of time; we were enlightened and reformed.
We painted and wrote of Crusades and Dark Ages and of the Romans’ great fall.
But the greatest event surpassed them all, a birth in a hidden cold manger.

Long before Daniel slept with the lions and Nebuchadnezzar ate grass. 
Before David was king and Samuel conceived, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were small
Before men built a tower and Noah a great zoo, before Cain took from Able the life he was due.
Before Eve gave to Adam the fruit of the tree – This story began in the heart of these three

Before the creation of Adam and Eve, the great dinosaurs and fish in the sea
Before there was life growing up, growing green, the flowers and trees, and plants with their seeds.
Before the foundation of the earth had been laid, before the sun and the moon and the stars had been made
Before light had appeared and the darkness erased, and the backdrop of space had been stretched into place.

This happened before the first Cherub sang and believed in his heart he was more than the king.
Before the heavenly hosts sang their songs without strife, before all of these things there was light, joy and life.
Immeasurable wisdom and abiding deep love, there was perfect contentment and peace up above.
Here lived a being so great and glorious, His power and might and story before us
Majestic beauty that had never been seen, love and great wisdom a glorious scene

This one knew nothing of being alone; no emptiness haunted this blissful throne.
Two others stood with Him alike in their ways, one in their nature, sharing their days.
They lived together clothed in pure light, perfect in splendor, Oh what a sight

Ageless and formless, no beginning, no end, from eternity past and beyond,
They know all things and have such great power, yet, still they lacked one thing in this tower.
There was no one to praise them, no one to know, no one forgiveness and love to show.
Who could understand the strength and the might, of the one who made the stars for the night?
Who made the sun to light the day and mortal men just out of the clay?

So they devised a plan to let someone know, about the glory they could show. 
It really (WAS) is a perfect plan, complete in every way.
To be truly known, and loved and praised, someone would need to see,
Not from compulsion fear or dread, the beauty of the things They’d said.
So was given the right to choose; but with this came evil and life to lose.

In the choices that followed, there was grief and despair, many have said, this isn’t fair.
These choices led to the loss, of the best of all They’d done,
But still They loved the ones They called, Adam and his sons.

It would not be easy to redeem, the fallen sons of God. 
For many would choose to turn away, thinking they had won.
Yet, for the sake of those They chose, They decided to send the Son.

It was long before that fatal day they knew They had to hang,
Upon a tree, without dignity, the one They called “the Son”.
So He set aside His robes of glory, His light and perfect joy. 
He chose instead a manger stall, to be birthed into this story.

They chose a maiden pure and true, and she became the one,
That gave him birth, the glorious one, and showed him to the earth.
On that night so long ago, the angels sang for joy.
They told the shepherds of the birth, of this one who came from glory.

You would think that those He came to see, would welcome Him with glee;
Instead we laid His body on, two pieces of a tree
As we nailed His hands, and His feet, into pieces of His tree
He looked into the faces of the ones, He had brought to be.

Still we left Him there to bleed and die, just hanging in the sky. 
and He took upon His broken form, the sins of all mankind.
He gave His life and paid the price in the fullness of His time.

© Paul Myrant 1986. Used with permission.

Labels: , ,

Friday, December 4, 2009

The Liberal’s Compromise: I win, You Lose...Then You Lose Some More....

Chapter 3, from the book Confrontational Politics: How to Practice the Politics of Principle
by H.L. Richardson

What occurs when these contradictory ideologies come into contact with one another, when those believing in traditional American concepts of limited government are assaulted by some new socialist program advanced by the Liberals?  Traditionalists, attempting to preserve the status quo, invariably react negatively, predictably.  Humanists act - offering programs of socialized revision, expect disruptive change, in fact, look forward to reaction.

It's important to know how each side views the confrontation – as a positive or a negative?  Who gains, who loses?  Traditional Americans dislike conflict and withdraw from it as a matter of habit and training.  On the other hand, the humanist looks upon confrontation as a necessity, a positive ingredient in advancing humanistic programs.  They expect confrontation, plan for it and anticipate the predictable, negative reaction from their opposition, often using the reaction to further promote their cause.  Conflict, therefore, is expected, welcomed, analyzed and then used to advance their goals.

Momentum is obviously on the side of the aggressors since they have the tactical advantage of initiating the attack.  Before their intended opposition even knows a clash will occur, they've had the opportunity to plan strategy, organize support, select the field of battle, choose the appropriate time to launch the new program and frame the issue in such a manner as to put their program in the best light.  (More on framing the issue in the next chapter.)  They know opposition will be forthcoming, since their plans are usually expensive, assaultive to the constitution and enlarge the bureaucracy, all three an anathema to the traditionalist.

Controlling the initiative, the humanist knows that, how a program is presented, often predetermines the outcome.  Propaganda-wise, they wrap the socialist "idea" in a semantic blanket of sophistry, warm cuddly humanitarianism, designed to put the opposition on the defensive.  Without question, the aggressor has the immediate advantage.

Once the conflict is engaged, the Leftists anticipate the opposition's response and judge their effectiveness accordingly.  The issue is pursued until the Conservative resistance becomes formidable and an overall negative result could occur.  At that time, a dialectic, backward step is in order.  A strategic retreat, giving up some ground.

The Liberal then offers a compromise, a partial solution is presented.  Half, instead of the whole loaf, is offered.  The Left suddenly creates the aura of appearing reasonable, moderating their request.  Leftist dialectics is nothing more than planned retreat, a tactic used to confuse and throw the opposition off-guard.  Lenin called it an important tool in accomplishing overall goals.

He used the analogy of a man driving a nail with a hammer, the backward stroke being just as important as the forward thrust of hitting of the nail. Ask for much more than expected and then, when the opposition builds, give in a little, play the good guy willing to concede.  Switch from bad guy to good guy, be conciliatory, be sweetness and light, offer "compromise."  Initiate the conflict then strategically back off.

Consider the bandit who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet then, with a kindly smile, says, "Shucks, I don't really need these."  As he hands you your credit cards, he adds, "Aw, heck, I don't need these either."  With that, he returns the children's snapshots and the wallet itself - minus the cash, of course.  Later, you couldn't help telling the police he wasn't such a bad guy after all.

Most Americans will accept compromise in order to avoid a continuation of the confrontation.  When the Left backs off, a sigh of relief is usually heard from the traditionalist.  In fact, the weakest and least informed on left-wing tactics often dictate the terms of how much is lost, since the timid are the ones usually intimidated and most willing to see the hostilities end.  In hopes of maintaining some of the status quo, this weakest link usually decides the amount abdicated and justifies acceptance with a begrudging, "We can live with that."

So, can the lamb live with the lion?  He can - until the lion becomes hungry again and there are no more lambs left.

The humanists accept the "compromise," having gained some ground, not all that they ultimately wanted, but more than they had before the confrontation began.  Once the "compromise" takes place, the status quo side happily retires from the fight, slightly disgruntled over the loss of territory but relieved that the conflict is over.

The camel's nose is under the tent.

The Left, with more recruits in their ranks and a foothold gained, patiently await the opportune time to start anew with more demands for more territory.  This has been referred to as the "salami" technique, one slice at a time until the whole loaf is consumed.  This is the way socialism has been infused within the body politic of America, one slice at a time, forward then backward motion.  Lenin stated it best, "We advance through retreat."

It's unfortunate that there is only one definition for the word "compromise," there should be another: One for defining the many physical compromises we all make as a matter of daily living and, compromising of principle.  Let me give you an example of the differences between the two.  My wife and I decide to rent a video movie.  She wanted a love-‘em-up and I want a shoot-‘em-up.  Instead, to make us both happy, we rent a comedy.  We both "compromised" our first desire and settled on a video we both could enjoy.  No principle was involved, just a physical giving-in, each watering down a personal choice in order to maintain family harmony.  All of us do this daily – especially if we want to stay married.

Compare this with a compromise of principle.  I support the Second Amendment, believing all law-abiding Americans have a right to own firearms.  The Left believes in the confiscation of all firearms, especially handguns.  What compromise can there be between us?  Any infringement on this right is a loss to Americans.  As you can see, there is no "physical" ground where either of us can repair.  By definition, compromise is a settlement of differences with mutual concessions being made by both parties; this is how the dictionary defines the word.  Both sides give up something.

This is not how the Leftists "compromise."  They will ask for 100 percent, then give in a little on their outlandish demands when opposition becomes formidable.  They may call it compromise but what are they giving up?  Absolutely nothing!  In order to implement their humanist agenda, are they sacrificing anything?  Are they relinquishing control or perhaps abandoning some other established bureaucracy in order to negotiate in good faith?  Never.  They relinquish nothing while insisting we compromise away a piece of our freedom.

When we object, they have the unmitigated gall to say we're not reasonable.  When we strenuously resist, they call us names – extreme, right wing, ultra-conservative and worse.  Unfortunately, we react angrily instead of calmly insisting they put something on the table.  When the socialists promote more socialized medicine, does anyone stand up and ask, "In exchange for more control of medicine, what are you Liberals willing to give up – the Environmental Protection Agency?  OSHA?  Welfare?  What are they willing to concede?

Such a question is rarely, if ever, posed by the Conservative.  No one seems to think of it.  When we give in to them, even an inch, we're not compromising; we're abdicating our rights and our honor.  When our legislators do likewise, they are abdicating our rights at our expense.

We must stop using the term compromise when confronting the Left.  It should not be a part of our vocabulary when dealing with the Left unless we humorously ask the question, "What are you putting on the table in exchange – HUD? – BATFE? – NEA?

We must put the picture in proper perspective.  We're not out to rewrite our United States Constitution, abandon our freedoms or force our ideas on anyone…but they are.  We Americans like the way our forefathers put this nation together.  We are, by definition, protectors of the status quo.  And why not?  It's well worth maintaining.  When you think about it, all we ask is to have the same rights and privileges that our fathers and grandfathers had and to have the same constitutional protections they enjoyed.
The problem is that this position is a defensive one, while the advantage favors those advocating change.  The Left takes the time to draft the issue in the best terms, estimate the level of opposition and pick an advantageous time to launch their plan of action.  They certainly have nothing to lose.  For should they fail, they are no worse off than when they started.  When they obtain only a small portion of what was originally wanted, they are still ahead of the game.

Just think of all the socialist program they have implemented – one step at a time.  They advocate, we defend, and confrontation ensues.  Then, the traditionalist is asked to "compromise."  In order to see the hostilities end, we concede a little.  Later, we concede a little more until all is gone.


There can be no compromises with the Left.  We are ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum with no arbitration possible.  Either they win or we do.  They will run the government or we will.  That's the only choice open to either of us.  They know it – shouldn't we?

The time has come for us to start asking for the abolishment of certain governmental agencies.  Then, if we must, "compromise" and see only half of them disappear …this year.  Before this can be accomplished, we need effective control of the legislative process.

The average American tends to see the participants in all these leftist "causes" as well-meaning folks trying to do some good.  They see each cause as disjointed efforts with no central theme or network linking them together.  Only when viewed as an overall movement to centralize and expand government does it make sense and the puzzle fits together.  The various causes may appear to have nothing in common.  Why would macho labor unions back candidates who are pro-gay?  What can be the tie between the pro-abortionists and the anti-gun movement – what causes seem to be further apart?
Again, their agendas for people-control are identical.  Both advocate more government and support similar candidates for office.  The preponderance of their leadership are, for all intents and purposes, ideological soul mates, social reformers, hard-leftists of the first order – invariably imbued with situational ethics and humanist ideals.  They are out to change America by demanding more and settling for less – one piece at a time.

Excerpted from the book Confrontational Politics: How to Practice the Politics of Principle, by Senator H.L. (Bill) Richardson (Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, 2009).


© 2009. Used by permission.

Senator Richardson served in the California State Senate between 1966 and 1984.  In 1975, he founded Gun Owners of America, and now serves as its chairman.

Author’s Biographical Brief
Bill Richardson is one of the good guys, a Christian family man, standing his entire career for the free Christian American republic. He served in the California State Senate, and is founder and present chairman of Gun Owners of America. He is the author of other books including Slightly to the Right and What Makes you Think We Read the Bills, which has been used as a California political textbook (Amazon.com Editorial Review).

“During his 22 years in the CA Senate, Richardson showed that a determined application of confrontational politics could produce victories – even when he was in the minority. Richardson organized multiple PAC’s that raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for political donations. He led the charge to defeat 3 members of the CA Supreme Court, including the infamous Rose Bird. He then enacted a capital punishment law over the veto of Governor Jerry Brown. Richardson’s political machine launched State Senator George Deukmejian’s successful gubernatorial bid on the heels of the capital punishment movement. At the same time, the philosophical center of the legislature was shifted to the right. Richardson authored a state preemption of firearms law which just last year resulted in overturning the recently enacted San Francisco handgun ban. He also passed a law that declares that one’s home is one’s castle and can be defended with deadly force. Conservatives today are not in power nationally, but that does not mean that they cannot win battles. If they are going to be effective, Richardson’s lessons need to be studied and applied.”—Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation (From the author’s blog; see also http://senhlr.blogspot.com/)

Labels: ,

Monday, November 23, 2009

Thanksgiving Produces Thanks-Living


by James and Barbara Rose
Christian Self Government produces Local Self Governing Christian Homes, Churches, Communities. Self Government is explained in I John 3:24: "He that keepeth his commandments DWELLETH IN HIM, and HE IN HIM. And hereby we know that HE ABIDETH IN US, by the Spirit which He hath given us." The internal gives rise to the external.
George Washington's and America's FIRST THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION requested Americans to pray God… 1) "to pardon our national sins; 2) "to render our national government a blessing to all the people (HOW?) by being a government of wise (laws), just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, and 3) "to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion (which was Biblical Christianity at that time) and virtue (or the righteousness of Christ)…".
"The Pilgrim wanted LIBERTY for himself and his wife and little ones, and for his brethren, to WALK WITH GOD in a Christian life as the rules and motives of such a life were revealed to him from God's Word. For that he went into exile; for that he crossed the ocean; for that he made his home in a wilderness." (Leonard Bacon, 1874)
FOUR PRIMARY REASONS THE PILGRIMS CAME TO AMERICA
  1. To protect their children from degeneracy and corruption. "Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shameth his father." Prov. 28:7 "…their dearest children…of best dispositions and gracious inclinations, were…oppressed with their heavy labors, … became decrepit in their early youth, and by the great licentiousness of youth in (Holland) and the manifold temptations of the place, were drawn away by evil examples into extravagant and dangerous courses, getting the reigns off their necks, departing from their parents, … tending to dissoluteness and the danger of their souls, to the great grief of the parents and dishonor of God." (William Bradford)

  2. To propagate and advance the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ "Go ye therefore and teach all nations,…" Matt. 28:19 "Lastly, and which was not least, a great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in to those remote parts of the world." (William Bradford)

    "In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten…having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage…do by these present solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation…" (Mayflower Document)

  3. To obtain and preserve Religious Liberty. "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Gal. 5:1 "And some of the chief of that company (of Pilgrims) doubted not to obtain their suit of the king FOR LIBERTY IN RELIGION, and to have it confirmed under the kings broad seal, according to their desires." (William Bradford)

  4. To be as "stepping-stones" unto others for the performing of so great a work.

    "..yea, though they should be but even as stepping-stones unto others for the performing of so great a work." (William Bradford) "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." I Cor. 3:6
THE THREE MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PILGRIMS TO AMERICAN CHRISTIANS
  1. They believed in "Reformation without tarrying for any" – as demonstrated by an individual and personal responsibility to obey God's Word. To the Pilgrim it meant "voluntary conformity to the rules and principles given in the New Testament, without waiting for others to obey, without waiting for the Church to change, and especially not waiting for the King to reform the church. Reformation presupposes repentance, and the Pastor of the Pilgrim, Rev. John Robinson, exhorted the Pilgrim church to "daily renew our repentance with our God, especially for our sins known, and generally for our unknown trespasses…"

  2. The Pilgrims were separatists and believed in the local, self governing, independent congregational form of church government. That is the form of church government to which we adhere. The Pilgrims "All had gained the intelligence that comes from the diligent study of the Bible and … were honest and earnest believers in the Christ of the New Testament. Such were the men and the women who were thus driven out of their native England, yet hunted and intercepted in their flight, as if they were criminals escaping from justice. Why did they suffer the spoiling of their goods, arrest, imprisonment, exile? They had caught from the Bible the idea of a church independent alike of the pope and the queen, independent of Parliament as well as of prelates (politicians), and dependent only on Christ. It was their mission to work out and organize that idea." (Leonard Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches, 1874) Individual self government and independent self governing churches produced a free, independent local civil government under the Mayflower Compact.

  3. THEY CAST ASIDE COMMUNISM IN LABOR AND SUPPLY FOR INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE. Did you know that the Pilgrims signed a contract with some London businessmen to obtain "their meat, drink and apparel and ALL PROVISIONS OUT OF THE COMMON STOCK AND GOODS of the said colony?" Agreeing to the condition that all property be publicly owned and that every person will get an equal share of their common labor and supplies – a form of communism / socialism in labor and supply --- was the only way they could obtain the funds to acquire the religious liberty they wanted. The Pilgrims strove for two years to keep this part of the contract but the result was such dissention, discord and want that their Governor cast off communism and established INDIVUDUAL ENTERPRISE. He assigned all the unmarried folks and orphans to live with more complete families, assigned each family their own plot of ground as their private property, and left every household to "shift for itself or suffer want."
Governor Bradford lists nine reasons why communism in labor and supply did not work:
  1. taking away private property and sharing everything in common did not make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God.

  2. communism in labor and supply breeds much confusion and discontent;

  3. it retards employment;

  4. the younger, able and stronger men complained that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without recompense or reward;

  5. the most able men thought it unjust not to receive more food or clothing than he that was weak and less productive;

  6. the older and "graver" or serious and solemn men did not like to be ranked as equal to the younger men in labor, food or clothing and saw such equality as an "indignity and disrespect";

  7. neither husbands or wives wanted to be commanded to serve other men by fixing their food, washing their clothes – they saw this as a form of slavery;

  8. the idea of all persons sharing alike, doing alike, being alike did not agree with "those relations that God hath set among men";

  9. communal property and communism in labor and supply diminished the mutual respect that should be practiced between people;

The Governor wisely displaced communism/socialism for individual enterprise and industry and productively increased enormously, but God intended the Pilgrims learn to trust Him not their own wisdom by permitting a DROUGHT and heat wave to descend on the land for nearly two months during spring time. The corn withered away and the ground was parched so the Pilgrims "set apart a day of humiliation" and sought the Lord by humble and fervent prayer in their great distress—and the rains came.

Thank God together this Thursday in remembrance of how the Pilgrims taught, illustrated and demonstrated SELF GOVERNMENT – THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR NATION, AND THEIR THANKS LIVING GIFT TO US AS AMERICAN CHRISTIANS.
HOW THE PILGRIMS FREED THEMSELVES FROM COMMUNISM
"All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in ye generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means ye Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of fictails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon ye poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in ye like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of ye mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been man of another condition. Let none objecte this is men's corruption, and nothing to ye course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them."
  1. Hall, Verna M.: The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America, Vol. I. Christian Self-Government. Founders Edition. San Francisco : Foundation for American Christian Education, 2006, S. 212; William Bradford, History of Plimouth Plantation.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 21, 2009

America’s Thanksgiving: From Socialism to Prosperity


by Marshall Foster

As our thoughts turn to Thanksgiving this year, it is a perfect time to recapture the true spirit of America’s Pilgrim ancestors. We are in a time of great trial, in many ways reminiscent of these faithful believers. It would be wonderful to share with our families and friends this Thanksgiving this brief story of the amazing sacrifice of these brave forerunners of our freedom. As we shall see, it cost them everything to lay the foundation of the most prosperous and free nation in history. Will the strength of our character be tested like theirs was?

The story begins in the small village of Scrooby as the Separatists (later called Pilgrims) began an underground church in the basement of a livery stable. These unlikely world changers desired to live a quiet life, raise their families and worship God according to the teachings of the Bible. But their biblical faith brought them face to face with the big government tyranny of their day.

King James I, the divine right tyrant of England, claimed absolute control over every person in his realm. He tortured, killed or exiled all who disagreed with him. He broke with the laws of England, to make all laws at his whim. (This is called “king’s law” and has been the tool of tyrants to keep almost all people in the world cowering in fear before them for 5,000 years.) The king was enraged that the Separatists dared to obey God rather than the king with regard to their worship and sacredly held beliefs. King James said “I will harry them out of the land - or else do worse.”

In 1607, the small Scrooby congregation sold all their possessions and tried to escape to Holland where there was a degree of religious freedom. They hired a Dutch sea captain. But once they were aboard his ship, he stole all that they had and turned them over to the king’s soldiers in the town of Boston, England. They were searched to their “innermost garments” and paraded through the streets. Then the men were dragged off to prison for nine months (which was often a death sentence). The women and children were left penniless and homeless on the streets.

A year later, these weary families were reunited. They attempted another escape by ship. As the men were on board the ship preparing to leave, they were forced by the Dutch captain at gunpoint to set sail and leave their families behind. The king’s troops came and captured the women and children on shore. Their wives and children pleaded for mercy from the king’s men, but instead were thrown in prison for a year. They were finally released and joined their husbands and fathers in exile.

Finally, the Pilgrim church was reunited in Holland and settled in Leyden. There for eleven years they enjoyed a degree of religious freedom. Their Cambridge trained pastor, John Robinson, was one of history’s foremost cultural reformers and Bible scholars. They learned from him what no other group of believers had ever put into practice. They discovered the secrets of civil, economic and religious liberty built upon the Bible and on 700 years of English Common Law.

But the heavy hand of poverty laid hard upon these exiles. The Dutch labor unions denied the English exiles any good jobs. Many of their children were forced into heavy sweatshop labor. They were heartbroken as their children began to be influenced by the immoral culture around them.

Finally, facing possible annihilation by a Spanish invasion, and having a deep concern for their children’s future, these faithful, tough pioneers decided to immigrate to the wilderness of America. They were facing almost certain death. But they chose to stand for the truth without compromise and for the hope that they and their posterity could experience liberty under God.

As the Pilgrims set sail for America, one of their two ships began to sink. They had to return to England and only a select group of volunteers boarded the Mayflower and continued the voyage in August of 1620. Sixty six days later, facing almost constant gales, the ship arrived off the coast of Cape Cod. The November storms and the Cape kept the captain from steering south to New York, their intended destination (the place of the king’s charter).

Now without a charter, they formed their own government. On November 11, 1620, forty six men gathered in the captain’s cabin and signed the Mayflower Compact. This was a government of the people – unique in all of history. It begins “In the name of God, Amen” and placed in the hands of the people the right to create laws and constitutions under God’s direction. This document became a basis for more than eighty colonial charters and covenants that laid the foundation for America’s Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Then, by God’s divine providence, after eighteen days scouring the Cape for water, they found a little harbor and a spring fed stream. It had been cleared of the overwhelming forests because it was the former village of the Pawtuxet Indians. Sadly, they had all died in a great plague several years before the Pilgrim’s arrival.

After coming ashore in the middle of a harsh winter, over half of the Pilgrims died by March of 1621. Most of the women died while protecting their children from the elements. They buried forty six settlers in common graves to disguise their weakness. The communal farming that had been forced on them by the merchants who had funded their voyage led to two years of near starvation. In the summer of 1623, they abandoned group socialism. Governor William Bradford gave each man a plot of ground to plant crops. In this biblical enterprise system, each man worked his own land which resulted in an explosion of productivity.

But no rain fell in July and August to water the crops and they faced certain death. They then repented for having forgotten to give God the glory. They declared a day of fasting and prayer for God’s deliverance. A gentle rain came that day and lasted for three days, restoring their crops and saving their lives. Governor Bradford declared a day of thanksgiving to God for His rain and provision. This story is the heart of our national holiday, Thanksgiving.

This year, we face our own form of drought. Many Americans have forgotten that it was God who made America free and prosperous. Let’s share America’s story with everyone we can, including our representatives at all levels of authority. Let’s encourage a return to the God of our ancestors. Is it not time to remember what our Pilgrim ancestors knew and did and to begin to rebuild our nation under God – one individual, one family, one community at a time?


Used by permission.
© From the Mayflower Institute Journal, November 2009
Order your Mayflower Institute Journal from:
Mayflower Institute
P.O. Box 4673,
Thousand Oaks, Ca 91359
805-523-0072
www.mayflowerinstitute.com
www.worldhistoryinstitute.com

Labels: ,

Monday, November 16, 2009

Islam's world peace: Now or later?

by William J. Federer

Islam is a religion of peace, but in the world of paradoxical definitions, perhaps some explanation is needed.

The word "Islam" means submission to the will of Allah.

A "Muslim" is one who has submitted.

Whereas most think world peace will be when people just learn how to get along, faithful Muslims think world peace will be when the whole world submits to the will of Allah.

In other words, world peace means world Islam.

To a fundamental Muslim, submission to Allah means submitting to Islamic law, called Shariah.

A jaw-dropping expose on the six-month undercover operation that revealed the true terror-supporting nature of CAIR: Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America. It's also available in electronic form at reduced price through Scribd.

Islamic Shariah law governs every aspect of human life, including:

  • What to eat
  • How to dress
  • when to pray
  • In what direction to pray
  • What position to be in when you pray
  • How many wives to have
  • The correct way to beat a wife
  • Who must accompany a woman in public
  • Who cannot be your friends
  • How to treat a non-Muslim infidel
  • Whether to drink alcohol
  • When to lie
  • When to kill an apostate
  • How to run a government
  • How to cut off the hand of a thief
  • How many times to whip a woman who has been raped
  • Whether one can listen to music
  • Whether one can play a musical instrument
  • What pets are permitted
  • How to wash parts of your body
  • The correct way to clean you teeth with a twig
  • And even what direction to face when using the restroom!
Islamic Shariah law is the complete submission of one's life, marriage, family, community and country to the will of Allah as revealed to Muhammad.

In its fullest sense, the word "Islam" actually means the opposite of the words "freedom" and "liberty."

But what about the majority of moderate Muslims?

Moderate Muslims believe the world will submit to Allah later, maybe at the end of the world, or maybe just figuratively.

Since it is so far off in the distant future, moderate Muslims have a more relaxed, patient attitude that allows them to get along in a friendly way with non-Muslim infidels.

Moderate Muslims can live comfortably in a free, democratic society.

Fundamental Muslims, on the other hand, think the world is in the process of submitting to Allah now. They are very excited and want to establish Shariah law, even justifying threats of violence and terrorism.

What are moderate Muslims, who believe the world will submit to Allah later, supposed to think when they see unprecedented acts of acceptance of Islam right now?

Such as:
  • U.S. Postal Service issuing Islamic postage stamps (September 2001; October 2002)
  • President Bush removing his shoes and visiting a mosque (Dec. 5, 2002)
  • President Bush putting a Quran in the Presidential Library (October 2005)
  • President Bush celebrating Ramadan for the first time in the White House (Oct. 18, 2005)
  • U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim, taking his oath of office upon a Quran (2007)
  • Presidential candidate Obama reciting Muslim prayers in Arabic, saying it is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset" (New York Times, Feb. 27, 2007)
  • U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi putting on Muslim hijab veil during a trip to Syria (April 2007)
  • President Bush appointing a Muslim, Zalmay Khalilzad, to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (April 17, 2007)
  • President Bush removing his shoes and visiting a Mosque a second time (July 27, 2007)
  • U.S. First Lady Laura Bush putting on Muslim hijab veil during trip to Persian Gulf (Oct. 29, 2007, Jerusalem Post)
  • A second Muslim, Andre Carson, is elected to the U.S. Congress (2008)
  • Presidential candidate Obama mistakenly says in a George Stephanopoulos interview, "My Muslim faith" (Sep. 7, 2008)
  • President Barack Hussein Obama elected, whose middle name is that of Muhammad's grandson (November 2008)
  • President Obama bows to Saudi King Abdullah (April 1, 2009)
  • President Obama says America is not a Christian nation (April 6, 2009)
  • President appoints devout Muslim Arif Alikhan to key position in the Department of Homeland Security (May 6, 2009)
  • President Obama does NOT publicly recognize America's traditional National Day of Prayer (May 6, 2009)
  • President Obama says America is one of the largest Muslim countries (June 3, 2009)
  • President appoints Syrian-born devout Muslim Kareem Shora to key position in the Department of Homeland Security (June 5, 2009)
  • President Obama broadcasts a Ramadan message to Muslims of the world (Aug. 22, 2009)
  • President Obama publicly recognizes the Muslim Ramadan with a dinner at the White House (Sept. 1, 2009)
  • Hundreds of Muslims gather at the U.S. Capitol to bow toward Mecca (Sept. 25, 2009)
  • White House's first full-veiled Muslim woman adviser, Egyptian-born Dalia Mogahed, praised Shariah law as "gender justice" (Oct. 4, 2009, on London-based TV discussion program "Muslimah Dilemma," hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party)
  • Again, the question is, what is a moderate Muslim, who believes the world will submit to Allah later, supposed to think when they see these unprecedented acts of acceptance of Islam right now, especially in a nation where 77 percent still identify themselves as Christian, 2 percent Jewish, etc., ... and only 0.6 percent Muslim? (Pew Religious Landscape Survey, 2008)

Understandably, the bipartisan actions of America's leaders showing tolerance and acceptance of Islam are exciting for Muslims, resulting in an increased enthusiasm for their faith.

As a result, many moderate Muslims are being persuaded that the world is submitting to Allah now rather than later.

Thus, the dilemma for the West is that the more it bends over backwards in unprecedented ways to show acceptance of Islam, the more moderate Muslims become enthused and gravitate to become fundamental Muslims.

They move from the moderate "LATER" peaceful camp into the fundamental "NOW" camp, which advocates Shariah law and justifies threats of violence and terrorism.

So in the world of paradoxical definitions, world peace means world Islam, and the more the West accepts Islam, the more it can expect threats of violence.

Now or later – are you ready for Islam's world peace?

___
Get the new DVD Radical Islam on the March, which features interviews with Nonie Darwish, Paul Diamond, Steven Emerson, William Federer, Frank Gaffney, David Lidington, Faisal Malick, Steven Masood, Douglas Murray, Robert Spencer, Dr. Jenny Taylor, Dr. James White, and Geert Wilders

William J. Federer is the author of the best-selling book, "What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur'an: A History of Islam & the United States," as well as "America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations" and "Treasury of Presidential Quotations."

© 2009, used with permission.

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Socialism as a Perpetual Civil War

by R. J. Rushdoony

From the Chalcedon Foundation book Law & Liberty 2nd Edition

Socialism and communism presuppose that their system represents the true order of the ages and is the answer to man's problems. This assumption is one that assumes man's problems to be not spiritual but material, not sin but environment. Change man's environment and you will then remake man, it is held. The answer to man's problems is therefore not the spiritual regeneration of man by Jesus Christ but the reorganization of society by the scientific socialist state.

Basic to the theory of scientific socialism is its infallibility concept. Every system of thought has an infallibility concept, but few are honest enough to admit it. Ultimate, final, and inerrant authority is vested somewhere in the system as the basic and assured arbiter of truth or reality. The scientific socialistic state sees scientific socialism as the infallible truth of history; its application ensures the perfect social order. If failures occur in scientific socialist states, it is not the fault of scientific socialism, which is by definition infallible and true, but of the hostile people, remnants of the capitalistic class, or traitorous members of the party. Because the scientific socialist state cannot blame itself, it must wage civil war against some portion of the state. Thus, first of all, socialism's answer to every problem is civil war. Someone is guilty, but never socialism itself.

Illustrations of this are many. The Soviet Union has faced a situation of continual purges. The purges of the 1930s stand out merely as being more dramatic than the routine ones. But every crisis in the Soviet Union demands a scapegoat, and war is therefore waged against some portion of the Party, the bureaucracy, or the masses.

In Communist China, according to a news report of Friday, March 24, 1967, pestilence broke out widely, with many contagious diseases spreading across the country. The Communist regime's answer to an already serious crisis was to threaten the doctors of China with a purge. The doctors were responsible, the Shanghai Radio declared, because they "had ignored Mao's health policies."1 The consequence of such a policy, the purge of doctors in a country with a serious shortage of medical men, only aggravated a serious situation, but anything is preferable to admitting that socialism can make mistakes and be an erroneous theory.

In the United States, inflation is a product of the federal government's departure from a hard money standard, from gold to paper, and a product of its debt living or deficit financing. The guilt for inflation is essentially the federal government's guilt. But the blame is instead shifted by federal officials to the private sector: labor is creating inflation by demanding higher wages, and business is inflationary because it demands higher prices for goods, and threats are made of wage and price controls. The demands of capital and labor are, of course, the results of inflation and their steps to protect themselves against it, but the policy of socialism is to ascribe all guilt to the people, and all wisdom to the state, in every crisis.

In these and other cases, the answer always remains the same: the socialist state wages war on the people. Whenever the scientific socialist state makes a mistake, the people suffer.

The second aspect of this socialist civil warfare is that it is perpetual civil war because of perpetual failure. Socialism is incapable of solving any problem it addresses itself to in the economic sphere. Because its premises are unsound and wholly in error, its conclusions are consistently failures. But, since socialism is by definition the scientific answer to problems of society, socialism cannot blame itself. As a result, it wages perpetual civil warfare as its answer to perpetual failure.


Third, the consequence of this perpetual civil warfare is an ever-deepening crisis. Propaganda works to disguise the crisis. We are always told that the Soviet Union is making economic and industrial progress and is becoming a milder dictatorship, but the reality is that it has merely gone from crisis to crisis and has faced a growing food shortage as a tribute to its incompetence. The other socialisms of the world have similar troubles. The little Fabian Socialist State of Great Britain is sinking steadily into the economic consequences of its own policies, and other Fabian states face a growing monetary and economic crisis. Socialism is never the way out for socialism, but simply the guarantee of an economic dead end.


Fourth, this perpetual civil warfare can and will terminate in the death of the state, and possibly of the civilization as well. It is destructive of the public and private resources of the state; the socialist state can sometimes build stone monuments and edifices, but it cannot perpetuate a living social order; it can only kill the order it seizes or inherits. It has often been observed that it is only when a civilization is dying that it begins monumental building constructions. Prior to that time, its concern is more with life than show. We cannot therefore misread socialism's predisposition for monumental construction as a sign of life; it is tombstone construction.


Fifth, perpetual civil warfare means in some form perpetual violence or repressive force, and as a result, the use of terror is not only accepted but is often justified and exalted. Terror is defended and upheld as necessary to suppress the enemies of the people and to protect the state from destruction. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his Critique of Dialectical Reason, spoke of terror as "the very bond of fraternity." Terror is made a moral principle and an inevitable requirement of history. As a result, "total terror" is practiced as a necessary and moral requirement of scientific socialism. Incredible brutality, barbarism, savagery, and degeneracy become the products of scientific socialism.2 Thus, the perpetual civil warfare that the scientific socialist state wages against its people is also a form of total warfare. It is more radical than total warfare, in that normal total warfare is for a stated period of hostilities, whereas the socialistic civil war and its terroristic total warfare have no end. It is a perpetual threat to the people, and, in varying degrees, continuously practiced. The more the state approaches total socialism, to that same degree it also approaches total terror and total civil war. It is this aspect of perpetual and total warfare that has made socialists like George Orwell, author of 1984, turn from socialism in horror, without believing really in anything else. Theirs is not a conversion but simply revulsion from terror.

Such a situation, of course, breaks down the will to work and the will to live of the subject peoples. Hope of escape, or hope that the socialist regime will end, begins to grow weaker, and the result is all the greater slow-down in agricultural and industrial production. This decline in productivity creates a major crisis, and the socialist leaders must give the people some reason to believe that there is hope of a change, a "thaw," in the socialist terror and oppression. A cow, after all, will finally give no milk if it is not fed, and so the masses, like human cattle, are given enough fodder to make them productive again. Their previous sufferings are blamed on bad underlings, poor managers. Stalin, for example, placed the blame on minor officials who were supposedly too eager to attain perfect socialism overnight. In dealing with enforced collectivization of farms, in a Pravda statement of April 3, 1930, Stalin declared that the policy was a "voluntary one," but unfortunately some officials were using threats and pressure.3 It was after this statement that millions were starved to death for resisting collectivization, but Stalin in advance had cleared himself publicly of responsibility and also encouraged those who were hostile to feel freer to make a stand. Khrushchev also gave promises of a thaw, and then launched into the vicious terror in Hungary, and the still-continuing and greatest terror against Christians.

The purposes of these brief thaws and breathers are strategic: they serve to give a despairing populace hope for a change. This, then, is simply a sixth, aspect of socialism's civil warfare against its people. The thaw creates a deviation from socialist policy only for the purpose of reinforcing that policy.

This points clearly to a seventh aspect of socialism's perpetual civil war: truth is at all times a central casualty. Since there is no truth apart from the scientific socialist state, any device, any lie, any strategy which will further the socialist experiment is valid. The lie is spoken to delude the masses and the enemy; speech has as its purpose not the communication of truth but utility to the dictatorship of the proletariat as a weapon of warfare. Semantics therefore becomes a major concern of socialism. Language must be used; it is a superb weapon. Certain words have powerful meanings to many men, and one way of using men's minds against themselves is to misuse the words that have a particular meaning to them. To expect language to have the same content to a socialist as it does to a Christian is a delusion. For the socialist, language is instrumental; it is a tool of revolution. Instead of representing a means of communicating an objective order of truth, language is basically an instrument of power. For the socialist state to neglect to use language as an instrument of power is for it to be guilty of bourgeois sentiments and illusions.

This, then, is the course of action, perpetual civil warfare, required by the scientific socialist state to maintain its delusion of infallibility. This perpetual civil warfare is a consequence of its departure from God and its socialism. It is a suicidal course, one well described by our Lord of old, when He declared, "He that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death" (Prov. 8:36).
  1. Oakland Tribune, "China Hit by Outbreak of Pestilence," Friday, March 24, 1967, 1.
  2. Albert Kalme, Total Terror (New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951), and Harold H. Martinson, Red Dragon Over China (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1956).
  3. W. R. Werner, ed., Stalin Kampf (New York, NY: Howell, Soskin, 1940), 252-257.
Used with permission.

Labels: ,

UNDERSTANDING THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND: A CONVERSATION WITH G. EDWARD GRIFFIN


The Creature from Jekyll IslandThe following interview was conducted by David McAlvany on July 28, 2009, and contains crucial information on the Federal Reserve System by the man who literally wrote the book on the subject: G. Edward Griffin. His book The Creature from Jekyll Island was first published in 1994, and its insights are more vital now than ever. If you haven’t been able to read the book, you’ll find this interview essential for understanding what has been going on in the U.S. over the past year in particular, and since 1913 in general. The interview is preceded by an introduction drawn from David McAlvany’s commentary in his July 21, 2009, McAlvany Weekly Commentary podcast at McAlvany.com.

In 1906, an earthquake hit the city of San Francisco. Gas lines burst, and four square miles – nearly half of the entire city – burned in what at the time was one of the country’s greatest catastrophes. The damage amounted to between $350 and $500 million.

Also in 1906, a financial earthquake hit U.S. markets when the Hepburn Act was passed in Congress and signed into law. That act allowed the Interstate commerce commission to set price controls on rail rates. When the act became law in the summer of 1906, the railroad stocks (which were at that time a very large component of the market) began to tank.

The consequences of any given piece of legislation really begins to hit home from 12 to 24 months after passage, so in the fall of 1907 the economy at large caught the Hepburn flu. United Copper, a company of which two successful investors by the name of Morse and Heinze were majority owners, was likewise affected, and came under pressure from short sellers. Morse and Heinze attempted to squeeze those short sellers out of their positions, but failed, and UC’s share price slumped from $60 to $10 in a matter of days. The two investors were bankrupted, and so were the banks they controlled – one in Montana and the other in New York. And the fall of these men had another, surprising, effect, as well.

Morse and Heinze had had a prior association with the third largest trust company in the country: the Knickerbocker Trust. That relationship had long been severed by mid-1907, but facts were not to get in the way of a good story. The past relationship led the general public to believe that the trust might also be in danger of insolvency. Though such was emphatically not the case, perception trumped reality and a run on the trust ensued.

As the trust scrambled to meet its depositors’ demands, JP Morgan both directly and indirectly pulled out the supports and credit lines to the Knickerbocker Trust, which subsequently collapsed. The Trust was a competitor, and Morgan’s attitude was apparently that if he couldn’t control it, he must destroy it.

Perhaps Morgan could not have foreseen the unintended consequences of his actions, but the 1907 banking crisis ended up resembling the 1906 San Francisco fire in at least one respect: it just kept burning … and burning … and burning. The 1907 panic turned into the worst by far of 13 banking panics that occurred between 1814 and 1914. Its impact was so significant in the public mind that it prepared the way for the implementation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

In May of 1908, Congress passed the Aldrich-Vreeland Act, which established the National Monetary Commission to look into the causes of the panic, and recommend enhancements for bank regulation. Senator Aldrich spent nearly two years studying European banking models, and in November 1910 convened a private meeting at the Jekyll Island Club, off the coast of Georgia. Representatives of all the major New York banks were invited.

The National Monetary Commission published its final report in January, 1911. The proposal was for an independent central bank. It outlined the involvement of regional member banks working through a central clearinghouse – a system similar to the one that Former president Andrew Jackson had purposefully subverted in 1836. He allowed the charter of The Second Bank of the United States to expire because of concerns over corruption, insider dealings, destruction of the currency, constitutional illegality, and political subversion. The merits of reinstituting such a system were debated for nearly two years. A bill proposing one took the name of The Federal Reserve Act, and it was signed and enacted on the same day – December 22, 1913.

We take the Federal Reserve system for granted today. It operates in total secrecy, and has never been audited. But in an effort to bring transparency to the system, a formal and independent audit is being proposed in Congress as this is written – 100 Democrats and almost every Republican have signed onto this bill.

Where the Federal Reserve System takes us over the next 5-25 years will be determined under the current administration. In an attempt to dig into this more deeply we’ve asked G. Edward Griffin to join us for an interview on where we are today with the “Feral” Reserve System and what system changes, including an expansion of influence and control, will mean for us as individuals and in the market place. Changing rules in the middle of the game comes with a cost – let’s see if we can’t anticipate and be positioned ahead of these tectonic shifts.

Following is the interview of G. Edward Griffin that occurred on July 28, 2009. Participants in the interview were David McAlvany (D.M.); Kevin Orrick (K.O.) – David’s co-host on the McAlvany Weekly Commentary; and G. Edward Griffin (E.G.). The interview has been edited for publication.

D.M. The year 1907 was obviously similar in scope to the changes that we’ve seen in the 2006 to 2008 period: changes in the financial system, changes to the banking giants, changes to the constituents – the players, and what we eventually saw by 1913 was something that was signed into law on December 22. The Federal Reserve Act was something that forever changed the financial system and structure here in the United States. The way we do business, what we take for granted in terms of currency stability – those things can be predicated on what happened December 22, 1913. So what we want to do is explore with Mr. Griffin. Last week, we brought ourselves up to the 1913 period. But we didn’t really explore what the Federal Reserve is, what its creation was intended to do, or what its purpose was. So let’s start with that and see what the role of the Fed was intended to be. What is this organization?

E.G. I am delighted to hear intense interest in the historical detail of this because without that knowledge it’s pretty hard to understand what’s going on today. And of course if we don’t know what’s going on today, we have no chance at all to know what’s going to happen tomorrow – which is probably where most people's concern is.

We had a lot of banking problems in the United States and runs on the bank [prior to 1913]. The banks were all chartered by the various states, and the charters were all pretty much the same. The bottom line is that what we have in the form of the Federal Reserve System today was already in existence, more or less, at the state level and in all the various states. In other words it was a partnership between the state governments and the state banks, and that partnership was such that the banks were legally allowed to participate in what is called fractional reserve banking.

What this means is that they were able to issue banknotes that people accepted as money – paper currency issued by the banks themselves. But those notes were far in excess of the actual reserves which were held in the vaults of the banks. That worked for a while, until everyone wanted their money back. The people have money on deposit in the bank, usually with the confidence that, well, it’s my money, and if I need it for an emergency or if I don’t like the way this bank is operating – or if I just want to put it somewhere else, I can always go and get it. That’s the general promise of the bank. That’s what they call a demand deposit, but the point is that if more than 3, 4, or 5% of the depositors want their money back, the bank is exposed – because the bank doesn’t have that money. It’s loaned out. So those were the occasions where runs on the banks occurred; banks went bankrupt because they didn’t have the assets they claimed they did. Banks went out of existence; people lost their money; it was a terrible situation.

This was a periodic thing that went on throughout history. Certainly it was going on in America at that time, so now we come to 1913. The public was fed up with this. The banks were worried about it because they didn’t like being exposed in this fashion. They didn’t like having people all demanding their money back, and declaring bankruptcy.

So now we come to 1913, and this very mysterious trip to Jekyll Island – well, actually that happened in 1910. The Federal Reserve Act was passed into law in 1913. But the drafting of the act and all of the planning started in 1910 – at a very special, very private, and very secret meeting on Jekyll Island.

Now Jekyll Island has a mysterious sound to it, but it’s a real island. A lot of people assume that it was a mythological island, something like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It has that mysterious sound to it. But it’s a real island off the coast of Georgia, and in those days, 1910, the island was completely privately owned by a small group of billionaires from New York. People like JP Morgan, William Rockefeller, and their business associates. They went for the cold winter months to escape New York. They had beautiful homes there, and they had a beautiful clubhouse, which is still there. You can visit it today. It was in that clubhouse that the seven leaders of the financial world, literally – at least of the United States: the JP Morgans, the Rockefeller interests, the Kuhn Loeb companies, and people like that in international investment firms – that’s where they all went and they went in secret. They denied to anybody who inquired that they ever went to this meeting.

It wasn’t until quite a few years after the Federal Reserve System was passed into law and became revered by the population as a great American institution – only then did they begin to talk openly about it. But the underlying fact is that they did go there under conditions of great secrecy, and they drafted the Federal Reserve Act there, and then they brought it back to Washington, DC. It was passed into law after a great deal of debate, commotion, a lot of propaganda – all over a three-year period.

The significance of the secrecy is that the Federal Reserve Act was offered to the American people as a means of breaking the grip of the money trust. That was the phrase that was used in those days to sell this legislation because the American people were concerned about the financial grip the large investment firms and banks, insurance companies, etc. had on the economy. Primarily the problem centered around New York and Wall Street, and they wanted legislation that would control those forces and protect the American people.

Well, lo and behold, the very bill that was supposed to break the grip of the money trust turns out to have been written by the money trust – that’s what they did there. That was the reason for the secrecy. They didn’t want the world to know that this great anti-bank bill was written by the banks themselves. So, you begin to understand when you get into the historical details how much deception was built into the system at the very beginning. Even today most Americans think that the Federal Reserve System is a government agency, and was created to control the banks to benefit the American people.

It’s a complete deception because the truth of the matter is that the Federal Reserve System as it was created on Jekyll Island by these representatives of the very large banks was a cartel, not a government agency at all – a cartel no different than a banana cartel, a sugar cartel, or an oil cartel. It was a banking cartel, and they created the cartel agreement on Jekyll Island.

Then they said, how are we going to force all of the banks, the newcomers, and all of the American people to abide by our cartel agreement? That’s simple: We take the agreement, make it into legislation, and pass it into law. We get the bubblehead congressmen to pass our agreement into law and call it the Federal Reserve Act, and that’s exactly what they did. So the cartel agreement is put in place as a law, and you must abide by it or go to prison because it now has government support and enforcement.

The Federal Reserve System has the appearance of a government agency, and engages in a little bit of political involvement mostly for show, but the institution is primarily completely independent. In fact, instead of the Congress controlling the Federal Reserve System, as it ought to, it’s more the other way around. Now it’s the Federal Reserve System controlling Congress.

You can certainly see that recently with all of the expenditures of taxpayer money. The Congressmen vote without even reading these bills. They are just told what to do by the banks, the bank representatives, the Federal Reserve, and the Secretary of the Treasury – who always comes from the banks. They are just told what to vote for, and they just vote for it because they know that the real power lies in financial institutions.

So we’ve got a creation here: a cartel that was supposed to control the banks, but instead the banks are now controlling the government. And it is all done in the name of protecting the economy, working on behalf of the American citizens, preventing bank failures, and that sort of thing. Well, it does prevent bank failure. We have to give it credit for that. How does it do that? Simply by taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers and giving it to the failing banks whenever they get in trouble.

They call it a bailout program, or a stimulus package, or something like that, but when you look at the real essence, it’s plundering the American taxpayer and putting the money into the banks – replacing their ledgers whenever they lose a lot of money.

K.O. Well, Mr. Griffin, we’ve always enjoyed reading your book, and going back and referencing it. But I have to say Chapter 2 is probably one of the more condensed ways of understanding how the  Federal Reserve actually sells what they’re doing. You said in Chapter 2 of The Creature from Jekyll Island that the name of the game is bailout. Could you explain briefly what that means?

E.G. Yes, I’m glad you like that chapter. I had a bit of fun creating it.
The banks know that they have their cartel agreement enforced by law, so they are not too concerned about losses. They know that no matter what decisions they make, if their loans go sour, they can absorb small losses. When the big losses come down the line, they know that they can go to Congress and say, "Hey, we need money to make up losses and we need it because it's in the interest of the American people. We don't want the economy to collapse; we don't want the banking system to collapse; we don't want corporations to go out of existence. Look at all the thousands of people who would lose their jobs, and a lot of these workers have families and children. The children won't have milk to drink." You know, all this heart-string stuff.

Basically they’re just trying to cover up the truth because they want taxpayer money to bail out their bad business decisions – but they always frame the issue in terms of protecting the nation. As a result, they're free to make loans to just about anybody.

Now, small loans they're very careful about. If you go into a bank to borrow some money for a car or house, they look you over very carefully – they look at your ability to pay. They are very cautious about that. But if you are a huge entity like a giant automobile company, or a city like New York City, or you’re huge like Mexico – and you're not just talking about borrowing ten or twenty thousand dollars or two hundred thousand dollars, but rather millions or billions of dollars, this becomes very attractive to the banks because they don't make money on anything except interest on loans. That's their whole business. They need to make huge loans and collect interest on these loans; that's their life blood. So they think: here's a loan to Mexico or here's a loan to China; think of the interest we can get off this loan. So they make bad loans, that's the bottom line.

Eventually, of course, some borrowers have trouble making the interest payments on those loans, and they start to get behind on their payments. What's the bank supposed to do with a country that's behind on its payments – or a large automobile company, or whatever? The banks can't really go and foreclose on an automobile company or a country, so the bank is kind of in a quandary.

So this is what they say: We're going to extend your payment period. We are going to make it easier for you; we're going to give you a break, and you won't have to pay this month – we'll extend the loan. In other words, we're going to extend the loan to the borrower so he can pay the interest, and we can continue to collect interest, but the corpus of the loan increases. The executives of the corporation or the political leaders of the country say: That's a hot deal; that's a way we can continue to have this money. And they use it for their purposes. We won't go into their purposes, but they get the loan extended and that works for a while.

After a while, though, they can't make the payments on the new loan either, so the banks say: I'll tell you what, let's just roll over the debt. We'll cancel it out. It’ll be a whole new debt, and it will be a larger debt, and we will expand the term from two years to five years. That works for a while, and then that starts to fizzle out. They keep doing that, over and over again.

These restructurings are primarily cosmetic, and finally the lenders have to have the taxpayers put some money into the pot to cover delinquent payments. When the banks get to that point, they go to Congress and come up with a sad story about how we need to protect America by bailing out these bad loans. Bailing them out will preserve jobs, keep people working, keep the economy strong, and keep the country that borrowed the money from becoming an enemy. After all if we force them into a tight spot with repayment demands, they may become enemies of America, and we don't need any more enemies.

So it's always framed as protecting and enhancing the interests of the American people. They get the American people on line through their Congressmen, who are pretty much captives of the whole system. Congress votes tax dollars for some kind of a stimulus program or some kind of a bailout program. But if you follow the buck, you'll always find that the buck goes into the coffers of the banks. The stimulus programs are there to allow the borrowers to continue to send the interest payments to the banks. That's where money ends up.

When Congress starts to resist, the banks go international for their money. They go to the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, and they say: This isn't really a national problem let's have these loans backed up or guaranteed by an international banking agency, and the American people cheer because they think: that's not our money; that's coming from the world somehow. But they don’t realize that much of that money comes from the United States, and once again it's their nice friendly politicians in Washington who are voting the money to the IMF so it can go toward the interest payments on these loans, and it just goes around and around like that.

And finally a government agency steps in, like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and they guarantee loans with money they don't have. So where will that money come from? It comes from the taxpayers. This is the game called "bailout" and we certainly see it playing out in full force today, not only in billions, but in trillions of dollars.

If you watch these Congressmen on C-Span as they talk about what they're going to do, you realize that these guys don't have a clue. They're just being herded along. They're being told by leaders of the banking industry that if they don't vote for these bailout programs immediately, the whole banking system will collapse. America will collapse. The world will collapse. And you don’t want that on your conscience, do you Mr. Congressman? And they say, oh, no sir. So they just vote without reading these bills. They don’t have any idea how it works, and they don’t care. They just want to cover their derrieres, so if everything goes badly they will say, don’t blame me, I voted to bail out the system.

Around and around it goes, and unfortunately the average voter doesn't understand the game either. So while he's cheering all these great moves, thinking they're for his benefit, you know there are other agencies taking money away as taxes. I'm talking about taking money away from the people through their taxes and through inflation, so the spectators are being run through the ringer royally. They don't even know it, and they think that what's happening is all for their benefit.

D.M. What we've described is a past-tense play that has been followed through in detail: rescheduling the debt, rolling it over, extending the payment periods, ultimately passing it on to the taxpayer, and allowing the FDIC to play its part. The book that you wrote sometime ago feels like it could be an exposé on the present-tense, though. This is the same playbook that has been in place, and has been utilized, not just in the last three years, but you go back through each of the financial crises of the last century. The Federal Reserve has implemented the same play, and ultimately passed the cost of its failures on to the taxpayers.

To close the loop, the real cost to taxpayers isn't that their effective tax rate went from, say, 20% to 25% – that's not the tax we're talking about. We're talking about the long-term decline of the dollar. We're talking about the fact that, in order to finance this scheme, the Fed has created an almost infinite sea of money. And the more money it creates, the less purchasing power the original stock of dollars has in the marketplace.

From 1913 to the present, we're looking at close to a 95-97% devaluation of the dollar, and that is how we have bailed the bankers out. That is how we have paid for this system. Some people got rich, and a lot of other people have gotten a lot poorer. There's a sociological commentary that can go with it and a political commentary as well, but in terms of economic commentary: the financial effect this has had on the American public is that we simply can't afford what we used to be able to afford. Three to five cents on the dollar is our purchasing power today.

E.G. Yes, I think that cannot be overstated. It takes a dollar today – not even a dollar, but a Federal Reserve note (which we call a dollar) – to buy what three cents would buy back when the Federal Reserve System was created. This is not an accident. That money went somewhere. That purchasing power went somewhere. It didn’t just disappear. It went somewhere.

Where did it go? It went into a pocket. It went to benefit the two partners in this scam: the government and the banks. They captured this lost purchasing power.

It's not merely an interesting phenomenon to read about. These people know full well – I call them monetary scientists – they know full well how to extract money from the American people without them even knowing it. Of course, that's the ideal way, if you're going to rob somebody. It's better to do it without them knowing it. Otherwise, they might resist, they might fight back. And the bankers don't want that.

That's the great value of inflation to the banks – and to the government, of course, which is a partner in this whole thing. You mentioned looking into the future of all this, and for those who like the second chapter in my book, I would urge them to go to the second-to-the-last chapter. That chapter is kind of a whimsical look into the future, and it was drafted in 1994. I just put my thinking cap on, and said, I wonder what it would be like if this trend continues. So I came up with this scenario.

I hadn't read it in many years, but when all of these bailouts began to happen in explosive quantities, I went back and reread this chapter. It blew my socks off. I didn't realize that it was possible to predict so accurately even the minor details, even the language being used to sell this scam. It's all there, and a lot of people say: Gee, you must have a crystal ball, you must be a genius. No, none of the above, all you need to know is what the game is and to know what they have done in the past. You can always predict the future if you know what the past is.

D.M. You’re right. It doesn’t take a crystal ball. It does take perspective.

The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor (MIA), September 2009; reprinted by permission.  For more information on MIA, please call 1-877-622-5826 or go to www.MIAtoday.com.

Labels: , ,