I've been trying to cut back on the use of profanity on my blog, and in my personal speech. But...occasionally, I see something that is so mind-blowing that I have to say..."What the fuck?". I'm in amazement as I watch these videos. However, anyone who has read 1984 is not surprised. Still...scary stuff. Disturbing stuff. I can't believe the love fest for this guy.
Hat Tip to The Catholic Knight.
Scary:
More Scary:
When I first heard this story, I was saddened, yet angry at the same time. During the summer of 2007, I was doing a lot of traveling between Round Rock (a city just outside of Austin, Texas) and San Diego. On one of these jaunts, I brought Taye and Quddus with me. Well, the boys and I had a great adventure (including the eventful car ride back to San Diego with our carsick cat, or the flooding of our downstairs due to a washer hose, but the details of both are for other blog posts) and I'm glad to have spent the time with them.
While we were in Texas for that month, we tried a local church called The Fellowship. It was a decent sized church and the boys had fun in their classes. I enjoyed the teaching of then Senior Teaching Pastor Donald "Roddy" Clyde. However, during my second time there, Pastor Roddy commented on the lack of giving which had taken place. As I exited the sanctuary, I noticed letters in the main foyer. So I picked one up. While I don't have a copy of it, it basically alluded to the same thing Roddy had mentioned regarding tithes and offerings. I've attended quite a few churches in my lifetime, so I'm pretty much immune to some dude on stage asking me to give money. However, I'd NEVER been to a church where the members were chastised in a letter for their giving (or lack thereof). Yeah, I've heard it in person, where they try to shame you into giving, but then I remember that God "loves a cheerful giver". So I blew off the letter. I mean, it didn't matter to me. I wasn't a member, and I hadn't pledged anything for the Building Fund or whatever he was upset about.
Well, we went back...I believe it was a week or two later. Some very tearful ladies got up on stage and informed the crowd that Roddy had resigned as the Teaching Pastor, and that details were available for MEMBERS in the foyer. Well, I wasn't a member, but if he resigned, and it brought tears to the eyes of the ladies, I was going to find out why. Yes. I was nosy. But, I was in the investigation stages of my search for a church. I needed all information (was the justification I gave myself). Well, imagine my surprise when I found out Roddy has resigned after it was discovered he'd been stealing from the church.
I was pissed off. Yeah, stealing money from GOD is bad. I mean, stealing violates one of the Ten. It's a big deal. However, when you rip off the House of God? I'm not calling Roddy's salvation into question, because he is flawed. He has a sinful nature and free will, like every other person walking the planet. However, I was angry that he had sent a letter out asking for more money, when he'd ripped off the church to the tune of half a million dollars.
Well, I didn't think the church would prosecute him. However, it looks like they did. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison and 10 years of probation. I'm not going to post a link to the site(s) with sentencing details, because they are on news sites, and their links usually die after 3-6 months. However, if you want more details, you can Google "roddy clyde sentencing" or just click the link back there or here.
Yes, Roddy is paying the earthly consequences for his sin. However, he wasn't the only one affected. I learned a long time ago not to place my faith in man. Because man isn't perfect, and makes mistakes. But what of those who were new to the whole "church" thing? What about people who finally decided to give Christianity a whirl, only to find out that the Pastor was a thief? I hope God was able to reach those who were new or on the fence.
Money can be earned again. $500K is nothing. But Roddy Clyde ruined not only his reputation, but because of his proclamation of being associated with Jesus, it allows the unbeliever to attack and possibly discard the truth. In addition to this, his wife and children have to suffer some of the consequences of his sin. Like I said, $500K is nothing. However, even ONE lost soul, as a result of seeing Roddy's example is too expensive. I'd be willing to bet if we were to ask Roddy if he'd make the same choices, knowing the outcome, he'd say the cost was too great.
****************************************************************
My purpose for telling this story is not to beat up on Roddy Clyde or re-open this wound for his family. However, some people lose their reputations for 5 minutes of physical pleasure. Roddy Clyde took a much different path, with equally disastrous consequences. I also want others to see that the unconfessed sin in our lives can start small and explode into something major. Roddy Clyde didn't just write himself a check for $500K and expect no one to notice. I imagine it started out small. Probably $200 here. $650 there. Eventually it grew, and grew. Once it reached mammoth proportions, he went into panic mode, which was probably that first letter that referenced the giving as a congregation. But, by then it was too late. As I mentioned, I was angry, but now I'm just sad about it. Two families have lost their spiritual head -- the church and the Clyde family. My prayers are with the church and the Clyde family. I know God will heal their pain through this trying time.
Ingrid Schleuter of Slice of Laodicea is hard hitting. However, after reading her personal blog, The Hope Blog, there is no doubt that this woman of God loves our Savior and is speaking the truth. The other day, Ingrid put up a post which is mild cause for concern, but also is in line with my idea of Burger King Theology.
I don't know much about the Emergent/Emerging Church. I will be researching said movement, comparing it against scripture, and will weigh in with a ruling later on. However, I did see that Tony Jones, a self proclaimed "leader in the emergent church movement and renowned expert on postmodern theology and the American church landscape" is promoting a blog called "Queermergent".
Now, I have no hatred of gay people, and I'm not "homophobic". However, I wanted to look at what the blog was about. So, I went over to this article. It all sounds nice. "Contribute to the queer conversation in a life-affirming way". I'm sure these are nice people. However, things that SOUND nice aren't always nice. More importantly, nice sounding things aren't always the TRUTH, but are (as we're learning about in church this week) True-ish.
What's wrong with the blog? Nothing. A discussion needs to be had with those struggling with homosexual issues. But, there are two vastly different discussions that need to take place, depending on that person's spiritual state. I'm going to throw a few Bible verses into play. It is up to you, the reader to go to the various places on the net and locate the full text. I will use the New International Version (NIV), unless otherwise indicated. Also, to assist those who may not be familiar with the Bible and the system of chapters and verses, I will explain. For example, Matthew 7:1-5 means the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, verses 1 through 5. Anytime you see the colon (:), the numbers before it reference chapter, the numbers after reference verse.
Matthew 7:1-5
Romans 1:16-32
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
Matthew 7:1 is one of the most abused verses in all of scripture. It is also one which people try to use to water down Jesus, and turn him into some sort of "anything goes, I'm okay, you're okay" buddy. It reads, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". Whenever a Christian speaks on someone who is acting in opposition to God, we can count on the Matthew 7:1 Smackdown. However, if you keep reading, Jesus is referring to judging our brothers in a hypocritical manner. How can I come against my brother for a sin I am committing? Exactly. But He is not referring to the outside world. How do I know? If you want, you can skip ahead to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. Or you can wait.
Next, we move to Romans 1:16-32 as well as 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. Part of the problem with the Queermergent blog is that they want acceptance for their sin. Yes, Jesus has paid the debt for your sins. However, you are to repent, turn away from your sin.
For example, Adele, the founder of Queermergent says (in her blog comments for this post), "Our society has taken on the idea from the Bible that sex should be between two married people. i no longer personally believe people have to be married to have sex. i don’t have a theological answer to base this view on, as it is where i have come to in my life. i do think sleeping around, whether queer or straight, is not very fulfilling. If two people are committed to one another, i believe there is nothing wrong with expressing that love in a a sexual context. Times and cultures change."
(emphasis mine).
Now, let's examine that statement in light of what scripture says. Read Romans 1:21-28 and go here. Pretty clear isn't it?
Remember I mentioned two different discussions? 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 explains exactly how we as believers are supposed to deal with people like those at Queermergent. We have a group of people who self identify as those who are in opposition to scripture, and there appears to be a movement which embraces them.
So, because I say that although it sounds nice to open dialogue or have a queer conversation or whatever, am I doing them any favors? I mean, the Bible is pretty clear on what will happen to the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. It doesn't look like there is a lot of wiggle room there.
So, am I Biblical? Or just another "intolerant bigot fundamentalist"?
For all the talk about "safe sex", people aren't getting the message. Why say this? Well, according to this article from Reuters, sexually transmitted disease rates are UP.
Our politicians, educators and media denigrate abstinence teaching, instead preferring this mantra of "safe sex" which means "condoms and birth control pills". However, those are only effective at reducing the rate of pregnancy. Disease still runs rampant in those sexually active, particularly the African-American community.
From Reuters:
Blacks make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, but account for about 70 percent of gonorrhea cases and almost half of chlamydia and syphilis cases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Black women ages 15 to 19 have the highest rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea, and gonorrhea rates for blacks overall were 19 times higher than for whites, the CDC said.
Watch the video first. I read an article today which made me think of the old Burger King commercials. You know, the ones where you can have it "your way". Issues I have had (and still struggle with) come from my own opposition to the absolutes in Scripture. I have claimed that I believe Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven, and that the Bible is the true Word of God. However, have I shown that with my actions? Have I been trying to have "Burger King Christianity"?
I mean, I have violated a few of God's laws because of ignorance. Why ignorance? Because I haven't read my Bible cover to cover. How silly does that sound to you? It sounds completely asinine to me. "I believe in _______, but haven't completely read the manual for it". Just to illustrate my point, I believe I know more about general insurance law, than what is written in the Bible after the book of Acts. Sure, I can pull a couple verses to illustrate my point. However, when I know more about contracts of adhesion and indemnity than something and someone I have staked my eternal consquences on, something is definitely WRONG. We all know that old question, "If you were accused of being a Christ-follower, would there be enough evidence to convict you in a court of law?" Looking at my life, no. And that's a hard, bitter pill to have to swallow. But it's truth, and sometimes, truth doesn't taste good. But truth is.
When I read the article on Christian Post (by way of Slice of Laodicea), I knew I was included in that 71% who "say they are more likely to personally develop their own set of religious beliefs than accept a comprehensive set of beliefs taught by a church or denomination". Because I have done it! I have rationalized quite a few things. Why? Because of my earlier mentioned opposition to God. Since the Fall, our flesh and human nature has been at war. We continually war against God, wanting what we want. However, because we are all made in His image, we have a desire for the love He provides. Cognitive dissonance run wild.
So, because of this inner battle, it's no wonder we pick and choose what feels good. Instead of God being someone we respect, fear and stand in awe of, our culture has turned Him into this kindly looking grandfather figure. Loving, unassuming, never angry or judgmental. My fellow believers, how often have we heard a question that begins with this, "Why would a loving God..."? Exactly. What's worse is that we've allowed Jesus, our Savior, the reason we believe what we believe, to be turned into a fairy. One who loves all, and is inclusive, and never judging or saying a harsh word. "Jesus was all about love and acceptance, so I can..." you fill in the blank.
Our Bible says "God will not be mocked". Let me update that for you, and put it in 21st century terms. God is not a punk and not your buddy. You see, what people don't realize is that yes, God is love and is loving. He sent his son to die for you, me and everyone else. But, make no mistake, God is not a punk. When people feminize, turn God into a cosmic genie, and blatantly disrespect Him, they are forgetting about the Old Testament God. You may have heard of Him. Flooded the ENTIRE Earth because He was (as Genesis 6:6 says) "grieved that he had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain". You may have also heard of the Old Testament God who destroyed
Jesus is not a fairy. He's not some big brother who symbolizes all love, tolerance and no consequences. What people don't seem to realize is that Jesus of Nazareth was the most hardcore person to EVER walk the earth. Yes. Imagine every comic book character you can think of. Jesus would have kicked his/her butt. You're referring to a man who lived a perfect, sinless life. Most of us have sinned within 5 minutes of getting out of bed, and I don't even want to think of my teenage years. But Jesus lived and didn't sin. He was tempted over and over again. I would imagine the temptations for Him were far more intense than anything we've gone through. Have you seen "Bruce Almighty"? 'Nuff said. Now, Jesus, after living a perfect life, was condemned to die for a crime He didn't commit, and was sentenced to be crucified (one of the most painful methods of execution), where He experienced agony and pain unlike anything we could experience (as He was paying the cost for ALL sin). So, someone who experienced this will definitely not be some airy-fairy "do what feels good" kind of person.
My point is this. We have gotten away, and in some cases completely ignored how we're supposed to live. We have picked and chosen what we like and don't like about the path *WE'VE* chosen. Yes. We have made a choice to follow Christ, and with that choice comes responsibility to follow our handbook and code. We can't pick and choose doctrine like adding bacon or cheese to a burger. If we don't believe what our own Bible says, how can we expect anyone else to?
...learning how to accurately shoot. A good friend of mine told me, "Yemi, Texas is getting to your head". We were discussing something relating to Comrade Obama, and he meant it jokingly. However, it's something I look at as a badge of honor. I am a Texan. I think of that bumper sticker that reads "I Wasn't Born in Texas, But I Got Here As Fast As I Could!".
Well, here in Texas, we love our guns. It's no secret. In fact, I will become a gun owner this year. However, with the ascent of Comrade Obama to Presidency (and in the eyes of some, de-facto messiah), gun owners are a bit worried. Not worried that they'll try to take away our right to bear arms, but that we'll have to use them on those who come to disarm us. Make no mistake, Obama wants to expand the right to murder unborn babies, expand the government, have some mandatory youth service requirement, raise taxes and have "sensible gun control". Interestingly enough, every dictator in human history has been a gun control fanatic. Hitler and Stalin come to mind. But I digress.
Some of you are wondering, "Well Yemi, if the government comes to take your guns, what good will your Desert Eagle do?" Well, I found an interesting article which answers that question. It's an oldie, but thanks to Mike Vanderboegh for writing it. I will link to it here, but will also paste the full text below. It's long. Yes. But well worth reading.
A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:
"If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)"
If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me:
"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."
Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question.
Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.
A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly innaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.
The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.
Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)
Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)
They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.
Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military heirarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas-present fashion out in the middle of the desert.
I forget the name of the Senator who observed, "You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money." Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million-- that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camoflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes.
Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its' relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).
But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."
The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers such as Charles Schumer would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.
Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty", as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him.
The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep.
Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"-- a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.
Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable wooly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged.
There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not-- for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters." Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content are content to watch the numbers of these "armed sheep" diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below below a level that the wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our "Animal Farm," without apology to George Orwell.
Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause to fight for, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it. The dirty little secret of today's ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible ("wedge issues" the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited. Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie "A Bug's Life". Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected from the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. "A Bug's Life", a childrens' movie of all things, is just such a place.
The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated "Magnificent Seven", you're right.)
The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a "bug cantina" down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named "Hopper" (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified), that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. "Would you like a seed?" he quietly asks one. "Sure," answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. "Would you like one?" Hopper asks the other. "Yeah," says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them.
"So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?" Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. "I'll show you why!" he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!"
I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?"
"If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them, "our game is finished. We're finished."
Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants.
Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without.
They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance-- not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.
Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but it is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing.
It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for the false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government. It is slavery of a more traditional sort that extorts half of our incomes to pay, like slaves of old, for the privilege of serving and supporting our master's regime.
It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness"; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God.
So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything." The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, but only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance.
A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny:
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
The Spartans at Thermopylae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered.
The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them."
The time is late. Those who once has trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better.
We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now-- five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands-- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world."
Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country.
The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans." The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War.
And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."
But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery.
If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way, our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant's army.
So, we've been homeschooling our kids for the last two years. Why? At this point, private school is not in our family budget, so we homeschool. It's interesting to see the reactions of others. Common questions are:
Don't you worry about social interaction?
Aren't they going to be isolated?
Are you and Jen qualified to do that?
My answers are No, No and Yes, in that order.
But, why don't I send the kids to public school? Because I love them. Because my kids are not emotionally equipped to deal with the daily onslaught of anti-God propaganda which reigns supreme in the American public school system. You figure, each school day lasts around 7 hours. At 7 hours per day, figuring a 180 day school year, that's 1260 hours per year in an environment which is after the hearts and minds of children. You see, the environment and general attitude of public school seeks to feminize boys and marginalize men. Being a male is under attack in our society (which is another post in itself). Look at what's on television. Name a positive male role model. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Schools aren't focused on teaching reading, writing and math. Instead, "conflict resolution", "tolerance", "inclusion", "diversity", "alternative lifestyles" are the words of the day. Christmas carols? Hell no! Can't have those, as Christmas undermines diversity. Mention Christmas? Oh no. It's not "inclusive" enough. Self-esteem rules the day.
Why would I send four of the people I love most; those who I would give my life for and would do nearly anything for...why would I send them into a battle, which could end in massacre? You see, I've been swept up in the liberal agenda. It almost cost me my soul. Were it not for the prayers of family and friends, as well as the love of a woman far more grounded than me, I could very easily have gone past the point of no return. I'm not putting my children in that position. I don't want them having the CHANCE for that to take place. Yeah, I can't control them forever. However, I can build them up, spiritually train them on how to be the kind of men who will be stronger than their father ever was. When they're older, they will be equipped to withstand the seductions of the world.
Some will say, "Well don't you want them to be the light to others in a dark place?". In a word? No. 1 Corinthians 15:33 will back me up. Have you ever noticed how sickness is contagious, but good health is not? Exactly. Again, they are not spiritually equipped for that battle...YET.
So, will I put the kids in school? Probably a private Christian school. Public school? No. If they want to do battle, they can go to any number of colleges here in the States.
Don't believe this is a real issue? Read this article from Ingrid of Slice of Laodicea. Ingrid doesn't provide a warm, fuzzy blog. It's real talk, which is what is needed in these times.
