I was sitting out back a few moments ago listening to the rain and watching it hit the water in our backyard. I realized the we to often forget the little things in life and take way to many things for granted like a soft breeze on a sunny summer's day, the serenity of a park or forest with tall trees and wildflowers, the crashing waves of the ocean and crying gulls, the company of animals both in nature and domesticated, making a difference in someone's life, brisk Autumn days, sipping coffee in the early morning hours, smiles and laughter, being creative, listening to music, reading an awesome book, the company and conversation of family and friends, living my life with compassion, kindness and love, these are some of the little things in life that matter most. Enjoy your little things and just be a peace every once and awhile.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
LITTLE THINGS
I was sitting out back a few moments ago listening to the rain and watching it hit the water in our backyard. I realized the we to often forget the little things in life and take way to many things for granted like a soft breeze on a sunny summer's day, the serenity of a park or forest with tall trees and wildflowers, the crashing waves of the ocean and crying gulls, the company of animals both in nature and domesticated, making a difference in someone's life, brisk Autumn days, sipping coffee in the early morning hours, smiles and laughter, being creative, listening to music, reading an awesome book, the company and conversation of family and friends, living my life with compassion, kindness and love, these are some of the little things in life that matter most. Enjoy your little things and just be a peace every once and awhile.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Removing God and Prayer in Public Schools Has Led to America's Demise and the path to Socialism
America has plummeted from righteous living, prosperity and success in the last quarter century.
America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools. On June 25, l962, 39 million students were forbidden to do what they and their predecessors had been doing since the founding of our nation – publicly calling upon the name of the Lord at the beginning of each school day.
The New York school children which prompted the Engel vs. Vitale ruling had simply prayed: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee and beg Thy blessing over us, our parents, our teachers and our nation.”
America has experienced radical decline in each of the four areas which the children’s prayer touched upon: youth, family, education, national life. Minor recovery has occurred only since 1980 when the election of President Reagan brought forth a renewed emphasis on “traditional” values.
The removal of prayer from our schools was a violation of the third commandment which commands us “not to take the name of the Lord in vain.” By the judicial act of forbidding invocation, the Court audaciously elevated a secularized system of education beyond the authority, reach and blessing of God Himself. Worse than taking the Lord’s sacred name in vain is treating it with contempt, denying it rightful place and stripping it from public use and even from the lips of children. Jesus’ own expressed desire, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them” was also violated by these judges, many of whom were raised in Christian homes.
But there was actually a gross violation of the third commandment by the U.S. Supreme Court a year earlier. A ruling in 1961, I believe, paved the way for stripping the Lord’s name from our children’s lips. In Torcaso vs. Watkins, the court overruled a provision of the Maryland Constitution which made “a declaration of belief in the existence of God” mandatory for holding public office.
Roy R. Torcaso, a Maryland resident and an avowed atheist, was refused a notary public commission when he would not subscribe to the required oath. His case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled to sanction atheism and overruled the Maryland Constitution.
Rev. T. Robert Ingram records columnist Felix Morley’s shrewd observations on this 1961 ruling in his study, The World Under God’s Law. Mr. Morley, writing in the Nation’s Business September 1961, pointed out “the absurdity of having an official administer to others oaths in the sanctity of which he does not himself believe.”
The effect of this ruling is not just to eat away at the sacredness of the name of God, but to eliminate the sacredness and thereby the substance of the oath itself. With solemn oaths and binding contracts between individuals removed, the state eventually sits where God ought, and only the state’s cause is held valid. There is no longer an absolute and just legal basis for judging “between a man and his brother,” much less a man and his neighbor (Deuteronomy 1:16, 17). All affairs of life become subject to state, rather than individual control.
Rev. Ingram documents and points out that “a broad, organized attack reaching into high places is under way to remove the third commandment from legal standing in the United States and throughout the world.” He points out that, “the World Court, for example, presumably the new fountain of justice, or a prototype of the socialist dream of world government, has no provision for’taking the name of God’ – no oath.” The Socialist agenda of world domination makes no place for solemn “swearing” between individuals.
Jesus’ teaching on oath-taking recorded in Matthew 5:33-37, while often misinterpreted, is actually a strong affirmation of the third commandment and a clear warning that “the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).
Besides forbidding perjury, (calling God to witness a lie) and false swearing, this passage also forbids all rash and unnecessary swearing, and especially warns against promissory oaths – that require a performance. Our “Yes” should be “Yes,” and our “No” should mean “No.” If understood, our word uttered in integrity should of itself be a sufficient and proper bond.
The “evangelical prophet,” Oswald Chambers (1874 – 1917), saw that the empty promises made by so many Christians actually result in great “spiritual leakage.” He admonished his followers: “Always beware of vowing, it is a risky thing. If you promise to do a thing and don’t do it, it means the weakening of your moral nature. We are all so glib in the way we promise and don’t perform and never realize that it is sapping our moral energy.“
Think then, what happens to a nation rife with perjury, broken marriage covenants, unforgiveness, cults with demonic covenants, extortion, bribery, libel, slander, profanity, hypocrisy, idle talk, and lawsuits initiated solely for revenge and personal gain. We are living witnesses that truly “the Lord does not hold such a nation guiltless.”
Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, we must each, as Oswald Chambers declared, realize that “God’s laws are not watered down to suit anyone; if God did that He would cease to be God. The moral law never alters for the noblest or the weakest; it remains abidingly and eternally the same.”
After more than 40 years of severe moral decline is it not time to repent, reverence the name of the Lord, reinstitute and keep the third commandment?
America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools. On June 25, l962, 39 million students were forbidden to do what they and their predecessors had been doing since the founding of our nation – publicly calling upon the name of the Lord at the beginning of each school day.
The New York school children which prompted the Engel vs. Vitale ruling had simply prayed: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee and beg Thy blessing over us, our parents, our teachers and our nation.”
America has experienced radical decline in each of the four areas which the children’s prayer touched upon: youth, family, education, national life. Minor recovery has occurred only since 1980 when the election of President Reagan brought forth a renewed emphasis on “traditional” values.
The removal of prayer from our schools was a violation of the third commandment which commands us “not to take the name of the Lord in vain.” By the judicial act of forbidding invocation, the Court audaciously elevated a secularized system of education beyond the authority, reach and blessing of God Himself. Worse than taking the Lord’s sacred name in vain is treating it with contempt, denying it rightful place and stripping it from public use and even from the lips of children. Jesus’ own expressed desire, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them” was also violated by these judges, many of whom were raised in Christian homes.
But there was actually a gross violation of the third commandment by the U.S. Supreme Court a year earlier. A ruling in 1961, I believe, paved the way for stripping the Lord’s name from our children’s lips. In Torcaso vs. Watkins, the court overruled a provision of the Maryland Constitution which made “a declaration of belief in the existence of God” mandatory for holding public office.
Roy R. Torcaso, a Maryland resident and an avowed atheist, was refused a notary public commission when he would not subscribe to the required oath. His case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled to sanction atheism and overruled the Maryland Constitution.
Rev. T. Robert Ingram records columnist Felix Morley’s shrewd observations on this 1961 ruling in his study, The World Under God’s Law. Mr. Morley, writing in the Nation’s Business September 1961, pointed out “the absurdity of having an official administer to others oaths in the sanctity of which he does not himself believe.”
The effect of this ruling is not just to eat away at the sacredness of the name of God, but to eliminate the sacredness and thereby the substance of the oath itself. With solemn oaths and binding contracts between individuals removed, the state eventually sits where God ought, and only the state’s cause is held valid. There is no longer an absolute and just legal basis for judging “between a man and his brother,” much less a man and his neighbor (Deuteronomy 1:16, 17). All affairs of life become subject to state, rather than individual control.
Rev. Ingram documents and points out that “a broad, organized attack reaching into high places is under way to remove the third commandment from legal standing in the United States and throughout the world.” He points out that, “the World Court, for example, presumably the new fountain of justice, or a prototype of the socialist dream of world government, has no provision for’taking the name of God’ – no oath.” The Socialist agenda of world domination makes no place for solemn “swearing” between individuals.
Jesus’ teaching on oath-taking recorded in Matthew 5:33-37, while often misinterpreted, is actually a strong affirmation of the third commandment and a clear warning that “the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).
Besides forbidding perjury, (calling God to witness a lie) and false swearing, this passage also forbids all rash and unnecessary swearing, and especially warns against promissory oaths – that require a performance. Our “Yes” should be “Yes,” and our “No” should mean “No.” If understood, our word uttered in integrity should of itself be a sufficient and proper bond.
The “evangelical prophet,” Oswald Chambers (1874 – 1917), saw that the empty promises made by so many Christians actually result in great “spiritual leakage.” He admonished his followers: “Always beware of vowing, it is a risky thing. If you promise to do a thing and don’t do it, it means the weakening of your moral nature. We are all so glib in the way we promise and don’t perform and never realize that it is sapping our moral energy.“
Think then, what happens to a nation rife with perjury, broken marriage covenants, unforgiveness, cults with demonic covenants, extortion, bribery, libel, slander, profanity, hypocrisy, idle talk, and lawsuits initiated solely for revenge and personal gain. We are living witnesses that truly “the Lord does not hold such a nation guiltless.”
Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, we must each, as Oswald Chambers declared, realize that “God’s laws are not watered down to suit anyone; if God did that He would cease to be God. The moral law never alters for the noblest or the weakest; it remains abidingly and eternally the same.”
After more than 40 years of severe moral decline is it not time to repent, reverence the name of the Lord, reinstitute and keep the third commandment?
Friday, April 9, 2010
What is the Military-Industrial Complex?
The Military-Industrial Complex is a phrase used to signify a comfortable relationship between parties that are charged to manage wars (the military, the presidential administration and congress) and companies that produce weapons and equipment for war (industry). To put it simply, the Military-Industrial Complex is described as an all-too friendly relationship that may develop between defense contractors and government forces, where both sides receive what they are perceivably looking for: a successful military engagement for warplanners and financial profit for those manning the corporate boardrooms. It can be viewed as a “war for profit” theory.
In any case, the theory of a mutually beneficial relationship may not appear to be so far-fetched. It is no secret that the defense industry profits most when a nation commits to a lengthy war overseas. As any military will spare no expense for victory, it only makes sense to tap the resources of the defense industry to accomplish the mission. A sort of pseudo-world dominance through the basic form of imperialism can be seen to be just as important to a military force as is protecting one's homeland. The bottom line: war is good business for those invested in it - manufacturing, production, servicing, etc.. To the war-minded industry, a wartime economy is just as profitable as a solid growing one, where shells and ammunition take precedence over the production of peacetime light bulbs or pencils. One need only to peruse the list of manufacturers participating in production during the Second World War to see just how a wartime economy can alter a single factory.
The phrase Military-Industrial Complex was first utilized in an American report at the turn of the 20th Century. “Military-Industrial Complex” was later immortalized by outgoing United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his January 17, 1961 farewell address to the nation. In his speech, he cites the Military-Industrial Complex as a warning to the American people – to not let this establishment begin to dictate America’s actions at home or abroad. The original usage appeared in the form of Military-Industrial Congressional Complex but later removed.
If you do believe in the Military-Industrial Complex, the sheer significance of such a relationship between our government and business is overwhelming.
Is Obama Legally in Office?
Nothing but FACT in this 6 minute film. All the evidence is catalogued for you here in this brief film. PLEASE, PLEASE...follow the instructions at the end of the film. The Future of our Nation depends on YOU! You will hear audio clips of Kenyan Ambassador Orego declaring that B.H.Obama was "born in Kenya " and clips of Gov. Bill Richardson , an Obama Cabinet Appointee declaring that "Obama is an immigrant" and much, much more...you must see this and pass it on - if our nation is to survive this Constitutional crisis!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
WHY AMERICA IS CALLED AMERICA
It is an irony of history that the name "America" did not come from Christopher Columbus. That distinction belongs to a German writer of geography.
In a further twist of events, America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, a 15th century Florentine merchant who owned a business in Seville, Spain, furnishing supplies for ships, preparing them for mercantile expeditions.
How do we explain what seems to mock the reality of history?
Stirred by the achievements of Columbus and envious of the reputation his discoveries brought, Vespucci endeavored to cultivate Columbus' friendship and trust.
Seven years after Columbus' first voyage and while Columbus was still alive, Vespucci accompanied an expedition that consisted of four ships. They sailed past the eastern coast of South America, and visited Trinidad, which Columbus had named the preceding year. On his return to Europe Vespucci wrote letters with glowing descriptions of the newly discovered countries. He called the lands he had visited a "New World."
Some years later Vespucci's letters were published and read by Martin Waldseemuller, a noted geographer, and Mathias Ringmann, a schoolmaster. Recently arrived from Germany to the province of Lorraine, they were attracted to the town of Saint-Die because of a newly established print shop. Both men were engaged in working on a reproduction of Ptolemy's treatise on geography, to which they were adding a preface.
After reading the account of Vespucci's travels in "Quatre Navigations d' Americ Vespuce," they decided to incorporate Vespucci's voyage into the treatise. Ringmann, acting as editor, wrote in his introduction:
"There is a fourth quarter of the world which Amerigo Vespucci has discovered and which for this reason we can call 'America' or the land of Americo."
Apparently ignorant of the discoveries and achievements made by Columbus fifteen years earlier, Ringmann continued:
"We do not see why the name of the man of genius, Amerigo, who has discovered them, should not be given to these lands, as Europe and Asia have adopted the names of women."
Their work was published on April 25, 1507 under the title "Cosmographiae Introductio." It marked the first time the word AMERICA appeared in print.
In a further twist of events, America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, a 15th century Florentine merchant who owned a business in Seville, Spain, furnishing supplies for ships, preparing them for mercantile expeditions.
Stirred by the achievements of Columbus and envious of the reputation his discoveries brought, Vespucci endeavored to cultivate Columbus' friendship and trust.
Seven years after Columbus' first voyage and while Columbus was still alive, Vespucci accompanied an expedition that consisted of four ships. They sailed past the eastern coast of South America, and visited Trinidad, which Columbus had named the preceding year. On his return to Europe Vespucci wrote letters with glowing descriptions of the newly discovered countries. He called the lands he had visited a "New World."
Some years later Vespucci's letters were published and read by Martin Waldseemuller, a noted geographer, and Mathias Ringmann, a schoolmaster. Recently arrived from Germany to the province of Lorraine, they were attracted to the town of Saint-Die because of a newly established print shop. Both men were engaged in working on a reproduction of Ptolemy's treatise on geography, to which they were adding a preface.
After reading the account of Vespucci's travels in "Quatre Navigations d' Americ Vespuce," they decided to incorporate Vespucci's voyage into the treatise. Ringmann, acting as editor, wrote in his introduction:
"There is a fourth quarter of the world which Amerigo Vespucci has discovered and which for this reason we can call 'America' or the land of Americo."
Apparently ignorant of the discoveries and achievements made by Columbus fifteen years earlier, Ringmann continued:
"We do not see why the name of the man of genius, Amerigo, who has discovered them, should not be given to these lands, as Europe and Asia have adopted the names of women."
Their work was published on April 25, 1507 under the title "Cosmographiae Introductio." It marked the first time the word AMERICA appeared in print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)