Republican Gratuitiveness to the Progressives, A Lump of Coal to Their Voter Base

I received this email greeting from the Speaker of the House, who seems to be oblivious to the fact that the only ones celebrating the detestable Omnibus spending bill this season are the Democrat Party and their supporters. Speaker Ryan bestowed on the Progressive Movement and the Democrat Party a very generous thoroughly undeserved Christmas gift. Below is an email I received this morning and the response I relayed back to the Speaker.

December 24, 2015  |  

On behalf of the whole House, I want to extend my warmest wishes to everyone celebrating Christmas this year. We spend a lot of time this season asking for what we want. But perhaps it would be better to ask for what we need. We have been given so much in this country that it almost seems ungrateful to ask for more. But all of us—at all times—need more of what is good. And this year, I hope that all of us continue to live in what I consider the spirit of Christmas: a courageous humility.

It took courage for God to humble Himself. He came down from heaven and became a man—a child in a manger. He did this while knowing that one day He would have to lay down His life for us. He would have to give up His only Son. At first, this might seem like a sad story. But we are to “rejoice in the Lord always.” Christmas is a day of celebration. And it is only through grace and prayer that we come to realize: what a gift He’s given us—what a profound act of love.

And so we rejoice. This year, may we continue the spirit of Christmas by facing our flaws fearlessly and by giving back boldly. May we recognize that our way is not the only way—it is not even the right way. It is God’s way we seek. May we cherish all the gifts we have been given—especially the men and women of our armed forces, the people who keep us safe. And may we remember that it takes courage to put others first. It is courageous to do the right thing. May we remember, and be brave—and be glad.

Here is my humble reply to Speaker Ryan's Christmas greeting.

Merry Christmas Speaker Ryan.

This year has been a great disappointment. The Republican Party has veered far from Conservative and Party Platform principles. The GOP in Congress has completely failed to stand up to the Democrats' and the President poisonous progressive agenda, and for conservativism.  

Why is the abortion giant and aborted baby-parts peddler Planned Parenthood completely funded for the new year? Why is ObamaCare completely funded? Why have you allowed the President's Amnesty executive orders to move forward with full funding? Why have you allowed the Syrian refugee resettlement program to be completely funded?  

This Christmas the Democrats and Progressives are rejoicing over their great victory over the feckless cowardly Republicans. You and you colleagues have only preserved, moved forward and even strengthened the Democrat agenda. I'm ashamed of the Republican Party.

Sincerely,

-Greg

Outmanned Democrats Celebrate A Major Victory Over Spineless Republicans

As if I was not aggravated enough at "my" GOP, I get this most unwelcome solicitation from the Party of Outright Surrender:

FINANCE UPDATE 

Greg-

With only 10 days left in 2015, we are critically short of our fundraising goal [SURPRISE, SURPRISE - I WONDER WHY THE GOP IS NOT BEING SUPPORTED!]. This may not seem like a big deal, but if we do not raise enough funds, the Senate Democrats will be able to bury our candidates in negative and misleading attack ads [ACTUALLY, THE REPUBLICAN ARE DOING A GOOD JOB BURYING THEMSELVES, DON'T YOU THINK?].

Will you step up to support our conservative Republican majority? [WHY WOULD I ,OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER, SUPPORT YOU GUYS NOW AFTER THE BEATING YOU TOOK IN COMPLETELY SURRENDERING TO THE DEMOCRATS IN HELPING THEM TO INSURE PASSAGE OF THE OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL? THE REPUBLICANS WERE GIVEN A MANDATE TO RESIST THE OBAMA/DEMOCRAT AGENDA - YOU NOT ONLY DID NOT DO THAT, BUT YOU ENABLED IT!] Please make a secure contribution today.

Our Senate majority has gotten a lot accomplished this year [THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, WHO TO 'YA THINK YOUR FOOLIN'?]. From bolstering funding for our veterans to repealing Obamacare [WHAT?], the Republican Senate has been promoting the conservative reforms they promised last year [THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!. This is all in jeopardy [WHAT A JOKE!].

Will you support our conservative majority [WHERE ARE THESE SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVES? IF THEY DO EXIST THEY HAVE BEEN MISSING IN ACTION ALL YEAR!]? 

If you make a contribution before the end of the year, your contribution will be triple-matched [PLEASE DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH, GUYS].

Thanks,

Senate Republicans [RINOs - REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY]

Speaker Paul Ryan & GOP Don't Get the Point, Do They?

Surrender on Omnibus Bill Give Democrats Major Victory

Read: Omnibus Spells Death of the GOP

I responded to the email I received from the Republican Party with the following:

What has the GOP accomplished for the American taxpayer? Nothing.

*  Planned Parenthood is still receiving 100% Funding

*  Obama's Executive Amnesty Stands

*  Obama's Syrian Refugee Resettlement Fully Funded

*  ObamaCare continues to be Fully Funded

With helping the passage of the Omnibus spending bill Republicans in both house of Congress accomplished a whole lot for the Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer said that the GOP, by agreeing with the Omnibus spending, without a real fight, has helped to advance the Democrat agenda, principles and program beyond his and the Democrat's wildest expectations!

I am very disgusted and angry with the Republican Party since you have controlled the House and Senate. You've essentially wasted the last 6 years.

Thank you Speaker Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell!

Omnibus Spending Bill, Winners & Losers

Pelosi and Democrats Gleeful After Soundly Defeating Republicans

Omnibus Spending Bill Winners:

*  The Democrat Party led by President Barrack Obama,

*  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,

*  Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid,

*  The Planned Parenthood Federation of America

*  Muslim Syrian Refugees

*  Islamic Terrorists

Omnibus Spending Losers:

*  America

*  The Republican voter base

*  Taxpayers

*  Tea Party members

*  Conservatives

*  Pro-Life supporters

Including the Republican Party
Voter Base

While the Democrats celebrate the monstrous Omnibus, which funds nearly all of their perverse progressive agenda, Rush Limbaugh suggests the GOP only makes only excuses for its inaction, and intentionally has disenfranchised its voting base, with the intent on broadening its appeal to non-conservative voters.

Basically the passage of the Omnibus Spending Bill today, December 18, 2015, was the willful not-so-sweet-surrender by establishment-led Republicans of both Houses of Congress to the Democrat Party Progressive Agenda. There was not an iota of real resistance. The GOP intentionally gave up their constitutional-given Power of the Purse in return apparently for keeping the bloated government from shutting down and preserving the status quo.

My Congressman, Pat Tiberi (RINO - OH 12) voted for Planned Parenthood funding, Muslim Syrian Refugee Resettlement Program of Obama, ObamaCare, and Obama's Executive Amnesty. Senator Rob Portman (RINO - OH) voted against the spending bill.

The Neutering of the Republican Party in Congress

Why in the world would the GOP so completely relinquish their power of the "purse to the purse" to the President and to Ms. Pelosi and Senator Reid in the Congress without any fight for basic party principles in the deliberation over the massive year-end appropriations spending bill introduced this week?

I am very disappointed, frustrated and discouraged with the current state of the Republican Party. Why did we work to help the GOP gain the Senate and increase House membership? We are about to witness today, December 18, 2015, the complete and utter cave-in of the GOP to the Democrat Party perverse progressive agenda of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. There has been no apparent change in the actions of Paul Ryan who appears to be a regurgitation of John Boehner, Boehner 2.0. All talk and no action. The Party surrenders it principles for what reason I do not know. Is it with the avoiding confrontation with the hope of maintaining power and/or the status quo? 

Here is the email I just sent to my two RINO reps in Congress. I don't expect that they will do anything, however.

To:  Senator Rob Portman (R-OH)
        Congressman Pat Tiberi (R-OH 12)

Re:  Omnibus Appropriations Bill

Please do not vote for the Omnibus Bill today. It funds every major point of the Obama/Democrat Progressive Agenda including:

* ObamaCare
* Syrian Refugee Resettlement Program
* Planned Parenthood
* Obama's Executive Amnesty

Why in the world would the GOP so completely relinquish their power of the purse to the President and to Ms. Pelosi and Senator Reid without any fight for basic party principles?

I am very disappointed, frustrated and discouraged with the current state of the Republican Party. Why did we work to help the GOP gain the Senate and increase House membership?

Audacity the Movie

Here’s How The Election For Speaker Of The House Is Going To Play Out | ConservativeHQ.com

Here’s How The Election For Speaker Of The House Is Going To Play Out | ConservativeHQ.com

Obeying Governing Authorities

I have been listening to some “Principles and Policies” radio broadcasts about Kim Davis.  Chuck Michaelis and Barry Sheets have been talking about how Romans 13:1-7 has been used by sodomites and their sympathizers against Kim Davis on the basis that she has failed to obey the governing authorities.  Barry has said that he hasn’t found any Christian blogs that have made a response to this false argument.  So I have decided to make a response.  Before hearing their podcast, I hadn’t actually heard this argument being applied to Kim Davis.  First I quote for you the Scripture in question:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Romans 13:1-7 (KJV)

I will go over the arguments that Chuck and Barry have already given.  Kim Davis, being a duly elected County Clerk of Courts is a “ruler” and a “minister of God” according to the way the terms are used in the above Scripture.  So according the argument of the sodomites, everybody should do what Kim Davis says.  The Supreme Court has no legal authority over the issue in question and furthermore Kim Davis cannot be in contempt because she was not one of the litigants in Obergefell v. Hodges.  Furthermore God’s word condemns both sodomites and those who approve of such practices in Romans 1.  The key issue is that governing authorities are no longer recognized by God if they fail to operate within their appointed purpose which according to the above passage is to punish evildoers.  I would add that in Acts 5:29, when told to stop spreading the gospel by the council of the elders of Israel, the apostles said, “We ought to obey God rather than men”.  The sodomites’ argument tells us that if we were living in Nazi Germany, we ought not to help Jews and others escape the concentration camps because we would be disobeying "the law of the land".

Chuck and Barry also talked the Supreme Court's misuse of power by misinterpreting the 14th Amendment as well as the misinterpretation Article III judicial power.  I don't believe that the 14th Amendment was limited to protection from racial injustices, but I would add that the original meaning of "equal protection" is just what it sounds like.  No law (at any level of government) can give someone more protection from a criminal than someone else.  The "immunities and privileges" clause of the 14th Amendment does not change the definition of marriage or require that equal benefits be given to same sex couples as are given to couple who are really married. But the 14th Amendment does unwisely extend the powers of the judiciary as they get to decide whether a state has given someone "equal protection" in a particular case.  The 14th Amendment shouldn't even be in the Constitution because it was not properly ratified.    And judicial power extends only to litigants involved in a particular case.  The principal of stare decisis is valid, but not absolute.  Judges are not the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution.

Chuck also mentioned that Davis had been married four times.  I had heard this before, but I hadn’t heard that she was not a Christian until after she was married a fourth time.  I also heard that one of her marriages was to a former husband after having since married some other man which is a violation of Deuteronomy 24.  (But more importantly she violated Matthew 5:30, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39 just by remarrying any man after having been divorced.)  I did hear a portion of an interview where she was asked if her decision was not hypocrisy in light of her past.  Her reply was, “I’m forgiven.”  This is an excellent point.  When people get married, divorce and then remarry and the church accepts this as an acceptable lifestyle, the institution of marriage is effectively destroyed.  Marriage was not ruined by the sodomites, but by the mainstream church.  However, no matter what sin someone has committed, if they simply repent and make Yahshua Messiah (Jesus Christ) the absolute Lord of their life, then they are forgiven.  At that point there is no hypocrisy in refusing to participate in sinful behavior including the granting of marriage licenses to sodomites.  To issue those licenses would be in itself a sin which one would need repentance in order to be saved.

The "Three Goats and Cow", Romans 13 and all other arguments that the sodomites have come up with have all been so obviously false that any critical thinking person should easily see through it.

Vote No on Ohio Issue 1, 2015

Issue 1 is a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution which would change the apportionment process and rules for redistricting Ohio house and senate districts.

Issue 1 does nothing at all about the apportionment of congressional district seats.  This is where the vast majority of the gerrymandering occurs. 

Issue 1 takes the job of drawing the district lines out of the hands of the legislature and gives it to a new board called the “Ohio Redistricting Commission”.  I oppose this because, if at all possible, all of the laws of our state should be made by the legislature.  That is the definition of a republic, which is required by the U.S. Constitution.  Having said that, I realize that redistricting legislation is a special case that deserves special consideration.  It is legislation that must be enacted in order to preserve the state.  But the commission issue 1 describes should only be used as a last resort (that is, if the legislature fails to pass a redistricting bill).  But issue 1 would do the opposite, making the legislature’s choice the last resort.  If the amendment contained enough precise rules to virtually determine the drawing of the lines, then there would be no need to involve the legislature and a redistricting board would only be charged with finding the correct map.  For example, a provision could have been added to the amendment that would say that of all possible maps which satisfy the other redistricting rules, the one that has the least variation in district population is the one that must be used.  But this amendment has nothing like that.    

The “Ohio Redistricting Commission” would consist of the same members as the current Apportionment Board plus two members appointed by the minority party leaders in the House and Senate respectively.  I oppose the addition of these members because it grants a privilege that is based on party affiliation.  George Washington said in his farewell address that political parties are bad for America.  We should not do anything to encourage them.  The addition of these two extra members favors Republicans and Democrats and discriminates against third parties and independents.

 

The amendment contains language that says that a redistricting plan must not favor any particular political party.  Do you really think that the “Ohio Redistricting Commission” is going follow such a subjective provision as that even with two minority party members out of seven?  I oppose any law respecting political party for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph.   The only way to prevent the lines from being drawn in a way that favors certain groups of people is to add more objective rules so that there is only one possible choice for how the lines can be drawn.  It is not necessary for any of these rules to take into account the party affiliation of voters.

The amendment contains language that says the districts must be compact.  It does not say how compact the districts must be in order for it to be an acceptable map.  I am in favor of compact districts, but the word “compact” is not defined in amendment and is therefore just as subjective as the concept of favoritism based on political party.  The amendment is not clear about which of these two objectives should have precedence in a case where both cannot be achieved.

The amendment cow-tows to the judiciary.  It contains language that basically says that if the court
(of competent jurisdiction) rules that it doesn’t like anything about this amendment, then we must disregard the parts that they don’t like even if they aren’t really unconstitutional.  The whole process would be subject to this scrutiny, not just what’s being changed by the amendment.  Remember, Jefferson said that the courts are not the final arbiters of the constitution.

The amendment contains basically the same constraints on the how the lines must be drawn in regards to existing boundaries of counties, cities and townships.  Issue 1 has some language that more precisely defines these rules and their order of precedence.  This is the only advantage I see in issue 1, but in my mind, it is far outweighed by all its disadvantages. 

Redistricting reform is needed, but issue 1 does not do what is really needed.

Vote No on Ohio Issue 2, 2015

Issue 2 has two purposes.  One is to prevent Issue 3 (the marijuana amendment) from coming into effect even if it passes.  The second purpose is to prevent the establishment of future monopolies through the amendment process.

I agree with the purposes of the issue, but not the way in which its framers are trying to achieve them.  The language of issue 2 claims that if it passes, issue 3 will not go into effect even it does pass.  But the Ohio Constitution says the following in Article II section 1b :

If conflicting proposed laws or conflicting proposed amendments to the constitution shall be approved at the same election by a majority of the total number of votes cast for and against the same, the one receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall be the law, or in the case of amendments to the constitution shall be the amendment to the constitution.

So therefore the only scenario in which issue 2 would achieve its first purpose would be if issue 2 passed with a higher number votes than issue 3.  This seems highly unlikely to me.  I would estimate that 95% of the people who vote “yes” on issue 3 will vote “no” on issue 2.  A significant number of voters always vote “no” everything and this number is likely to be larger in this election.

The language included to attempt to prevent future monopolies is weak.  The Ballot Board, consisting of the Secretary of State and four others chosen by Ohio law (Article XVI, section 1), would have the power to determine if an issue to amend the constitution establishes a monopoly.  If they find that it does, then another issue would be put on the ballot stating that the opposing issue establishes a monopoly and that if this issue passes, then the other would not go into effect.  In other words, you would have to pass two issues instead of one to establish what Ballot Board considers a monopoly.  This is unlikely to do any good for the same reason that the first purpose is unlikely to be accomplished.  It essentially assumes that the voters are too stupid to decide these things for themselves.

And of course issue 2 does nothing to repeal existing monopolies that have already been placed into the constitution.  A prime example is the gambling amendment that passed a few years ago.  

So what’s the harm in passing issue 2?  Ohio already allows us to put issues on the ballot without the approval of the legislature.  This really already puts Ohio outside the definition of a republic which is a violation of the Article IV section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.  But giving the Ballot Board the authority to put issues on the ballot extends this unconstitutionality even further.  We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy.  This means that all of our state laws must be passed by our legislature.  And any law that establishes a monopoly is essentially a Bill of Attainder which is unconstitutional under the federal constitution.  The Ohio Supreme Court already has the authority deny the enforcement of such laws.  The vague phrase "similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities" is dangerous, giving the Ballot Board and/or the courts a lot wiggle room for interpretation.  Its hard enough to get the courts apply the laws correctly when they are simple and well-written.

“Gender-Reversing” the Scriptures

Watch the video at the following URL:

http://www.touchinglives.org/multimedia/video-broadcasts/?showVid=499

This is the first time that I have ever heard a preacher preach against remarriage after divorce.  Up until now, I thought that I was the only one who believed what the Scriptures teach about this.  Some preachers teach that remarriage after divorce is wrong in theory, but they make so many exceptions that they may as well not bother to believe the original principle.  But this is not true of James Merritt.  He teaches the hardline position that fornication is the only reason for a divorce that would make it justifiable to marry another afterwards.  He correctly teaches that things like alcoholism, physical abuse, gambling, etc. are legitimate reasons for a woman to leave her husband, but not to marry another man.  I also like that he teaches that just because a remarriage might not break an explicit commandment of God, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is right or justified.

However, the Bible actually only teaches that if a man puts away his wife for any reason except fornication and then marries another woman, he commits adultery (see Matthew 19:9) and that if a man marries a woman who has been put away (Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18) or a woman who put away her husband (Mark 10:12) it is adultery.  In other words, the exception for fornication is only for the remarriage of a man, not the remarriage of a woman in that situation. 

But Merritt uses the following argument to try to prove that if you reverse the genders in Matthew 19:9, resulting statement will still be true.  Such a “gender-reversed” statement would read :

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away her husband because, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery...

He says that Jesus wouldn’t have talked about a woman divorcing (putting away) her husband because women were not allowed to do that at that time.  This argument has several flaws.

1.      Even though women were not allowed to divorce their husbands, that doesn’t necessarily mean that sometimes they didn’t do it anyway!

2.      The argument assumes that Jesus was exclusively directing his words to the people living in Israel (or that general part of the world) at that particular time.  In other words, the Creator of universe was completely unaware that his words would be written down and read by hundreds of millions people from many different cultures and centuries including those in which women could divorce their husbands.  In reality, Jesus’ words are timeless teachings that don’t generally need any “cultural interpretation”.

3.      The argument simply doesn’t logically follow from the fact he asserts.  Hypothetically speaking, Jesus may have omitted the hypothetical “gender-reversed” statement above for the reason that Merritt suggests.  But he offers no proof that the reason isn’t something else.  The “something else” could very well be that the statement isn’t actually true, couldn’t it?

4.      But the strongest evidence that this argument should be rejected is that Jesus does in fact specifically teach in Mark 10:12 that if a woman puts away her husband, it is adultery for a man to marry her (with no exception for fornication given).  How can you say “Jesus wouldn’t have talked about this…”, if he did in fact talk about it?  In all likelihood, the words which Jesus spoke in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:12 (and Luke 16:18 as well) were contained in the very same discourse that Jesus was having with the people.

I can think of another similar argument that someone might use to try, with much speculation, to prove the same point. That is, maybe Jesus actually did make the above hypothetical “gender-reversed” statement, but none of the gospel writers recorded it because women were not allowed to put away their husbands at that time and place. The reasons why this is also wrong are similar to the reasons why the first argument is wrong.

1.      Same as 1. above.

2.      The Holy Spirit guided the New Testament authors when they wrote the books of the New Testament.  There is even more reason to believe that the Holy Spirit knew that the words would be read by generations to come.  Therefore there would be no reason to omit the hypothetical statement if Jesus had actually said it.

3.      Analogous to 3. above.

4.      Same as 4. above.

Another possible consequence of this “gender-reversing” of the text is that a man cannot remarry if his wife left him without his consent (i.e. if the wife put her husband away). A “gender-reversed” version of the last part of Matthew 5:32 would read, “whosoever shall marry him that is divorced committeth adultery…” While there are many cases in which such a marriage really wouldn’t be right, it places an unnecessary restriction on some men which God does not require.

Of course there are places in the Scripture where masculine forms of words are used when they are intended to apply to both men and women.  For example in Galatians 6:7 (KJV):

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

There is a common sense, easy to understand hermeneutic for understanding biblical gender usage conventions.

1.      Whenever feminine forms are used (referring to people), it always talking about females and never males regardless of the context.

2.      Whenever a masculine form refers to a relationship to a woman (i.e. husband) or other family relationship (i.e. father or son) it is only talking about males.

3.      If the context of the passage is about relationships between men and women (not necessarily romantic or sexual relationships) then the masculine forms are referring only to males.

4.      A masculine form may refer to a specific person or specific group of males.  This usually will be clear from the context.

5.      Otherwise uses of masculine forms usually refer to both males and females in most Bible translations.  Whenever this is not the case, it will be obvious from the context.

The idea that rules for marriage, divorce and remarriage after divorce are different for men and women is an idea that may be hard for people to accept, especially in this modern age of “gender equality”.  But time and time again, history has borne out that we need to trust Jesus completely.  Monkeying around with Jesus’ words always causes a great deal of harm. 

Vote No on Ohio Issue 3, 2015

There are advantages and disadvantages to legalizing marijuana.

If marijuana were legalized, the police could spend more time and resources on rapists, thieves and murderers.  If people smoke marijuana and they experience its negative health effects, this should be enough of a deterrent, so there is no need to put them jail.  With fewer people in jail, more room could be made to give violent criminals longer sentences.  Criminalizing marijuana give authorities a pretext to use their powers against innocent people.  It gives them more power which tends to corrupt them.  Marijuana may have some legitimate health benefits for people with certain medical conditions.

One the other hand, marijuana may be a gateway drug that could lead someone to do harder drugs and commit more crimes.  Smoking marijuana causes lung diseases, brain damage and may be psychologically addictive.  Even though many people use marijuana illegally and for recreational purposes, legalizing it might increase usage. 

You may or may not believe that the benefits of legalizing marijuana outweigh the disadvantages.  But that’s not the point.  Issue 3 is not only about legalizing marijuana.  If issue 3 passes then only certain people who own certain property would be able to grow, process and sell the marijuana.  It is really about one group of investors wanting corner the market on marijuana so they can sell without any legal competition.  This is like the gambling issue all over again.  If you don't believe me read it for yourself:

http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative,_Issue_3_(2015)

If issue 3 passes, then the illegal marijuana producers and sellers will continue, the police will still have to arrest them and the people to whom they sell.  The people who sell it legally will charge exorbitant prices so that anyone with a medical need will have to pay more than they should if they can afford it at all.  For the most part, issue 3 has all of the disadvantages of legalizing marijuana, with very little of the advantages.  There are all these numbers and junk describing the exact boundaries of the land on which the marijuana can be grown and sold.  The Constitution of the state of Ohio is supposed to be about protecting the basic rights of EVERY citizen of Ohio.  Even though I don’t think that total criminalization of marijuana is good thing, marijuana shouldn’t be considered a fundamental right like freedom of speech, religion, arms and such.  On top of that it is an inherently unjust amendment which shows favoritism to a small group of marijuana investors which is one of the main things that is wrong with America today.  Its crony capitalism.

If you live in Ohio, please vote NO on issue 3.

After the Ruling, part 4

This is the fourth and final article in a series of articles about what to do in the wake of the wicked decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to force states to recognize same-sex unions as if they were marriages.  It’s time to stop compromising and get back to doing what is right.  It’s time to stop getting hung up on things that don’t matter and to prepare for what is likely to be a great persecution.

What can a godly statesman or political activist do in these times?

The states can combat the gay marriage ruling by simply refusing to obey it.  If a state chooses to abolish marriage licenses altogether, they might not have to recognize any marriage licenses, including those issued to sodomites.  There are also efforts to call into question the eligibility of two SCOTUS justices Kagan and Ginsburg from the case on the basis of a conflict of interest.  But in the current political climate these are unlikely to succeed.  

Short of that, the best thing to do is to support legislation which reduces the benefits that government hands out as an incentive for marriage.  Get rid of all tax breaks for marriage.  In Ohio, I was part of a successful effort to get rid of our state inheritance tax.  If you have it in your state, urge your representatives to get rid out it or start a ballot initiative to repeal it if that is an option in your state.  If that can’t be done, then support the elimination all exemptions, especially the spousal exemption or allow one to choose any one heir (not necessarily a spouse) to be exempted from the tax.  The only benefit that a married couple needs to receive from the government is the recognition that they have joint custody of their children and that only at the local level.  Try to reduce or get rid of child tax credits, since these now can be had by sodomites.  Support legislation to block same-sex couples from having joint custody of children.  Support state legislation which effectively nullifies unjust federal tax incentives and penalties, by refunding the state’s citizens of their federal income taxes or appropriate portions thereof.

Support legislation to protect parental rights from being taken away by the federal government. 

Do not vote for any candidates unless they refuse to have anything to do with taxpayer funding of sinful behavior.  Do not vote for any candidates for county clerk unless they refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  Do not vote for any judges unless they refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and refuse to participate in awarding same-sex couples joint custody of children.  They should not even have custody of children at all if they are in a same-sex relationship.  It is very harmful to children.  It warps their minds. 

I have reached the point where I think that most of my time would be best spent building up the church and forming biblical congregations as God intended rather than wasting my time trying to convince those in power who do not know God to do what is just and right.  If you do decide to get involved in politics, don’t bother with the federal government.  Try to reverse the damage at the state and local levels. 

Summary

We are in the world, but we are not of the world.  Avoid situations where people can coerce you into participating in sinful behavior.  Avoid any dealing with the government, especially the federal government.  Be prepared for persecution.  Learn to depend on other Christians and on God and try not to be dependent on the wicked for your livelihood or allow them to have any other hold on you.  Be patient with sodomites and other sinners when witnessing to them realizing that past experiences may have led them into their wicked lifestyle.  But also realize that if they don’t repent, they will be damned.  Rid yourself of all hypocrisy which includes condoning unbiblical remarriage after divorce.

Three Falsehoods and an Absurdity

A billboard put up in Kim Davis’ hometown reads:

“THE FACT YOU CAN’T SELL YOUR DAUGHTER FOR THREE GOATS AND A COW MEANS WE’VE ALREADY REDEFINED MARRIAGE.”

I have one question for the authors of this billboard.  Who is this “we”?

I did a quick search for cattle and goat prices and found that each costs about $200 a head.  But I also looked up the price of marriage licenses in my home state of Ohio and the cost was $50.  A little cheaper, maybe, but the concept is the same.  Instead of exchanging the animals with the parents for their daughter, now the state is the one who owns the women and the groom must pay their price in order to have her as his wife.  So much for “progressivism”.

Actually, to my knowledge, there has never been a definition of marriage which has required payment of goods, services or money by the groom to the parents.  There is nothing about it in the most reputable law dictionaries of early American history.  For example, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary makes it clear that both the man and the woman must be consenting to the marriage in order for it to be legally binding.  This goes all the way back to King Cnut (1016-35 A.D.) whose laws included this :

And let no one compel either woman or maiden to him whom she herself mislikes nor for money sell her unless he is willing to give any thing voluntarily.

And King Henry I :

Liberty of marriage recognized by Cn Sec 74 is here abridged but it is forbidden to demand money for the licence required as by the law of Cnut.

There is nothing that I have found in British Common Law that requires payments to be made to the parents of the bride by the groom.  Actually they had the concept of a dowry, which is almost the opposite.  Wikipedia defines it as “...wealth transferred from the bride's family to the groom or his family, ostensibly for the bride.”

Yes, there are provisions in these laws for buying of a wife like what is supposed to happen when a man buys a wife and the marriage doesn’t actually take place. But it doesn’t say anything about buying a girl from her parents. What if today a man from the U.S. went to some country where slavery is legal, found a slave girl that he wanted to marry and agreed to buy her if she would marry him and come back to the U.S. with him (of her own free will)? Would this not qualify as a real marriage under the laws of any state in the U.S.? The fact that he bought the girl has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. The fact that they were both willing is the important thing.  The problem was with the slavery, not marriage or its definition.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that a man must pay a price to the parents of a woman for her to be his wife.  There are only two things that are even close to this :

Deuteronomy 22:19 says that a man must pay 100 shekels of silver (not animals!) for lying about the bride’s virginity after they are married.

Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:29 say that a man must pay 50 shekels of silver for committing promiscuity with an unmarried woman.  (Again no animals were being exchanged for that purpose despite the fact that animals were required to be given for a variety of other purposes at that time.)  The man was supposed to marry the woman, unless the father of the woman refused to allow it.  But either way, the man had to pay the 50 shekels.

Some people think that the latter provision implies that this payment was required for any groom.  But this is speculation.  This could have been the tradition of the Patriarchs, the Israelites or the Canaanites living in the land at that time (c.f. Genesis 29:15-18, 34:12), but there is no evidence of a commandment of God to do this anywhere in the Bible. 

It is even a more of a stretch to say that such a provision was ever considered to be part of the definition of marriage according to the one true God, the God of the Bible.  Take for example the tradition of exchanging rings.  If you don’t exchange rings, does this mean that you aren’t really married?  Of course not!  Just because a marriage tradition exists (good or bad), that doesn’t make it part of the definition of marriage.

The commandments concerning the payment of money mentioned above are properly regarded as being for the nation of Israel only.  In particular, Christians are not bound by the Law of Moses.  So even if a “bride price” were included in the definition of marriage in the Law Moses (which is isn’t), the New Testament clearly releases Christians from such requirements because it indicates the Old Covenant has passed away, the people of the Old Covenant are no longer his people, and that God has established a new covenant with a new people, the believers in Jesus (Romans 9:25-6, Galatians 3, Hebrews, etc.).  And even if a “bride price” used to be a part of the definition of marriage, the change was done by God, not the “we” referred to in the billboard.

In early American history, in various states, interracial marriages were illegal.  But these were man made rules, not Biblical precepts.  Moses, an Israelite, married a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman (Numbers 12:1) and Solomon, also a Jew, married a black woman (Song of Songs 1:5-6).

The only time that the real definition of marriage has been significantly changed was when God forbad sexual relations between close relatives (Leviticus 18).  Previously, Abraham had married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12).  But again, it is God who changed the definition, not “we”.  Since God created the institution of marriage in first place, He and only He has the right to change it. 

There is obviously no danger that the tradition of exchanging animals for wives will return (if it ever existed).  But if we continue down the road that these sodomites would have us go, animals won’t be used as a bride price, but they will be the brides!  If “we” can change the definition of marriage in such a radical way as to allow a sodomite relationship to be considered the equivalent of marriage, then “we” could again change it to include bestiality, pedophilia, polyandry and any number of other unnameable sexual perversions.  If we continue in the same direction that we are headed, everyone will be forced to have a same-sex sexual relationship.  Anyone who fails to comply will be considered bigoted or guilty of sexual orientation discrimination.

In summary, the three falsehoods conveyed by the billboard are :

1. In the Bible or in Western Civilization, there is or was some widespread, generally accepted definition of marriage which required a man to purchase a woman from her parents with animals before he could marry her.

2. Some “progressive” activists freed us from this oppressive provision.

3. The same forward thinking leads us to logically conclude that sodomite relationships should be included in the definition of marriage.

And the most absurd proposition of all is that men can change the definition of an institution which was created and defined by God in the first place.

After the Ruling, part 3

This is part 3 in a series of articles about what to do in the wake of the wicked decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to force states to recognize same-sex unions as if they were marriages.  It’s time to stop compromising and get back to doing what is right.  It’s time to stop getting hung up on things that don’t matter and to prepare for what is likely to be a great persecution.

What can a church do in these times?

My advice for churches will be for naught unless the church repents of its wicked support of what Jesus calls adultery (remarriage after divorce under most circumstances).  So my advice is directed toward the few churches which do not practice this or any other perversion, yet are compassionate and forgiving of anyone willing to repent. 

Biblical church discipline must be practiced as described in Matthew 18:15-20, I Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, Titus 3:10.  Put a certain distance between the church and the rest of the world (2 Corinthians 6:11-18 and 2 John 1:9). 

Make it clear that being a part of Body is not like being a member of social club.  Make the church a safe place for Christians to build one another up, not primarily an evangelistic outreach.  Evangelism should mainly be done on an individual basis.  Jesus sent out his disciples in twos.  Don’t leave it up to the church to do.  Don’t just invite a non-Christian to church hoping that the preacher will say something to grab their attention.  Give them the gospel, the whole gospel, yourself.  You don’t have to do it all at once, but try to give them as much of it as you can as soon as you can.  Don’t hide the fact that this is something urgent, a matter of eternal life and death!

Get out of any arrangement made with the government such as 501(c)(3)  status.  How can you think that the church of Christ should continue such a covenant with such a wicked institution as the federal government which murders unborn babies and subsidizes sodomy?  Get out of Babylon!  I anticipate that the next step down this wrong road we are on will be for the government to require all 501(c)(3)’s to have a non-discrimination policy towards sodomites.  I am further anticipating that the government will make 501(c)(3)  status mandatory for all churches.  If I am right, that means that the church must necessarily go underground.  Any church that does not will become a vassal of the state like in Nazi Germany.  The churches need to make a dramatic paradigm shift. 

To avoid paying income taxes, the church should stop hiring employees.  This will also prevent the government from forcing us to hire sodomites (at least temporarily).  There is nothing in the Bible that says that a church has to have paid employees.  Most churches hire one or a few individuals and give them a large amount of responsibility.  These are often called “lead pastor”, “the preacher” or “senior minister”.  These titles are not mentioned in the Scripture and are therefore completely unnecessary if not harmful.  There is nothing in the Bible that says that one person must do all of the preaching, visiting of the sick, funerals, weddings and all of the counseling. It is probably better to divide these responsibilities up among the congregation even when the church is not under persecution.  If you have to pay somebody for doing work in the church, it should be on a completely voluntary basis, such as is often done when a love offering is collected for a visiting music group.  Under current federal law, an individual can give up to $10,000 per year as a gift to another person tax free.

At some point the government is likely to disallow true Christian churches to meet publicly.  Christians should prepare now by starting to meet secretly in small groups in homes and at random times and places.  We need to get rid of this foolish, legalistic notion that churches must have services in a church building and that it has to be on Sunday.  There is no such commandment in Scripture.  Get rid of all such man made traditions but do not compromise on what is essential according the scriptures.  Upon dissolving their incorporation, churches should turn their property over to members of their congregations so that it is less likely that the government will confiscate it for “hate speech” or whatever else they can dream up to stop us. 

There is nothing in the Bible that says that a wedding cake is necessary for a marriage.  If you really want one, someone in your congregation should make it, rather than buying it from someone who is forced to sell cakes to same-sex couples for their ceremonies.  Apply this same principle to photographers, florists, etc.  Be willing to give up all these things for the sake of Christ.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that people should have to have marriage licenses issued by the state in order for their marriage to be recognized or proper in God’s eyes.  From the time of Adam and Eve to Abraham Lincoln, there was no such thing.  The idea that one must obtain a license from the state in order to do what is a God given right should be offensive to any Christian.  And since the state issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then of course such a license means nothing!  Therefore churches should stop this practice and simply require that a verbal covenant be made that satisfies the conditions for marriage which I have listed in part 1 along with all of the other biblical requirements that God has for an acceptable marriage.  If you really think you need a piece of a paper to make your marriage feel real to you, then have your church issue you a certificate of its own making.

Wrong to Issue Marriage Licenses in These Cases as Well

With all of this talk about gay marriage and the issuing of marriage licenses to gay couples, it’s got me to thinking even more about marriage licenses.  Not only should whole concept of marriage license be offensive to a Christian, but it also puts county clerks and justices of the peace in a precarious position if they are true Christians.  There shouldn’t be any law or judicial precedent requiring the government to issue licenses to gay couples.  Maybe a state could get away with not having gay marriage if they didn’t issue licenses at all. 

But what about other instances in which a marriage is unbiblical?  Take for instance, if a Christian marries a non-Christian (I Corinthians 7:39, II Corinthians 6:14).  Or for example, what if a man marries a divorced woman (Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39) or a man remarries after having divorced his wife for some reason other than (her) fornication (Matthew 19:9)?  Shouldn’t the same governing officials have a crisis of conscience in these cases?  Shouldn’t they also be willing to go jail in order to refuse to participate in these violations of Scripture as well?

No they shouldn’t, because they shouldn’t be put in that position in the first place.

Many politicians, some even who claim to be conservatives, say that Christians who are county clerks or justices of the peace must take off their “Christian hat” and put on their “public official hat” when they are acting on behalf of the government.  This type of compartmentalization is completely unbiblical and unacceptable.  This type of thinking should completely rejected by all Christians.

Another option for a Christian who is a county clerk or justice of the peace would simply be to resign from the position.  But this is also a very undesirable alternative especially in a nation founded on biblical principles.

Another way to avoid situations where there is a crisis of conscience is to simply ban all unbiblical marriages.  But, marriages that are mixed by religion being unbiblical for a Christian, this would mean that the government would have to make a judgment as to who is a Christian and who isn’t.  Yes, the marriage is unbiblical even if the non-Christian spouse is a churchgoer but not really a true believer in his/her heart.  Thus, the government would have to judge the heart of a man.  It is way beyond the scope of government to make this type of judgment.  It would give the governing authority power which belongs to the Church and it would be deleteriously abused from the get-go.  It is for this same reason that all Christians should oppose hate and thought crime legislation.

Jesus says that it is adultery for a man to marry a woman who is divorce or for a man to remarry after divorcing his wife for any reason except fornication.  But Jesus indicates that these teachings are for Christians only and that God does not expect unbelievers to follow them.  The Pharisees correctly pointed out that these things were permitted under the Law of Moses.  Jesus said that this was because the hearts of the people were hard.  The Old Testament teaches that the hearts of the Israelites were hard as stone, but in the future their hearts would be replaced with hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19).  Surely, Christ has fulfilled this passage in us (true believers) through the work of the Holy Spirit and we do not live by the inferior standard of Deuteronomy 24 which was preferred by the Pharisees.  By the power of Christ in us we can and must receive Jesus’ teaching and live by the higher standard.  Jesus indicated this further by saying, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:12 (KJV)), implying that not everyone is able to receive it.  So why then should we try to force it on the unwilling?

Having eliminated all other alternatives as being unbiblical, the only one left is to abolish marriage licenses.  I am not saying that the government should have no records or recognition that a marriage has taken place.  Giving someone a license to something implies that you condone the action.  Marriages that are mixed by religion and marriages after divorce are sinful, but nevertheless they are real marriages in God’s eyes.  If it is sinful for a couple to be married, then if you grant them a marriage license for a fee, you are quite literally selling them a license to sin!  The issuing of a license to do something necessarily comes before the action, by definition of the word license.  If that action is sinful then it is the same thing as the indulgences that used to be sold to parishioners in Roman Catholic Church before the sin was even committed!  A marriage can be a real marriage in God’s eyes even though the decision to enter into it was sinful.  Thus for purposes of questions arising before a court about child custody and other similar issues, it is prudent for the government to recognize that marriage has taken place even though it was a sinful decision to enter into the marriage covenant.  But that does not mean that they have to sell licenses before the covenant is sealed.  When a Christian couple is married, it should only be the family and the Church that is involved in the joining.  The civil government should not be involved in that process.  In their official capacity, no Christian county clerk should ever have to make a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of the decision to marry.  Originally the justice of the peace had nothing to do with marriage and that is the way it should be.  Originally they were only charged with keeping the peace (thus the name).  At most the civil authorities should only be charged with the responsibilities of deciding whether a marriage covenant has taken place and protecting the God given rights of the couple if it is the case that they are married.  And this determination should be solely based on God’s Word and the facts of the case in question.  Obviously no government official should ever recognize a union of a same-sex couple as being a marriage.

In summary, a Christian should never recognize or declare a relationship to be a marriage when it isn’t.  The most obvious example of pseudo-marriage is a homosexual relationship.  A Christian should never be involved in the process of joining a couple in matrimony if such a marriage is a violation of Scripture, even though it may be a real marriage in God’s eyes.  It follows from this that the concept of a marriage license is inherently sinful or at least bars any genuine Christian from certain public offices.  But it is prudent and necessary for a Christian to record or recognize the fact that a marriage has taken place when the Christian is properly acting in an official capacity for purposes of protecting the parental and marital rights of the married couple even though the decision to enter into that marriage covenant may have been sinful.

After the Ruling, part 2

This is part 2 in a series of articles about what to do in the wake of the wicked decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to force states to recognize same-sex unions as if they were marriages.  It’s time to stop compromising and get back to doing what is right.  It’s time to stop getting hung up on things that don’t matter and to prepare for what is likely to be a great persecution.

What can an individual do in these times?

As an individual, every time you make a purchase or get paid by an employer, you are paying taxes that can be used to murder unborn babies.  And now that “gay marriage” is “the law of the land” your taxes will also soon be used to subsidize sodomy if they aren’t already.  Prepare yourself to try to make due with things you already have or can get for free.  Expect that as time goes on, more and more of your taxes will be used for wicked purposes.  So if there is anything that you will need in the future, buy it now. 

Be protective of your personal information.  Treat the government, especially the federal government, as if it were just another criminal trying to get information from you to steal from you or to use against you.  Romans 13 teaches that we should obey governing authorities, but this is talking about legitimate government.  This is talking about a government which rewards those who do good and punishes those who do evil.  Since the federal government does the exact opposite of what Romans 13 describes, there is no need to regard it as such.  There are so many federal rules and regulations, you couldn’t possibly obey all of them even if you wanted to.  But don’t try to confront the government by yourself; instead try to avoid dealing with it as much as possible.  Use the “turn the other cheek” principle up to the point where the government starts to force you participate in sinful behavior.

As much as possible, buy your food at small farmer’s markets or grow it yourself.  Whenever you have to buy food at grocery store, buy foods that can be stored for long periods of time in bulk so that less of your money will be used to support sodomy and baby killing. 

If you can get by without having a job, then do so.  If your job requires you to recognize or support sodomite relationships, then refuse to comply.  If you get fired, all the better.  God will take care of you if you truly put your trust in Jesus, believing the words he speaks in the Bible. 

Don’t join the military.  Remember who the Commander-in-Chief is.  If you’re already in it, get out ASAP.  If you can’t get out of it legally, join Oath Keepers.

Get off of health insurance and join a Christian health sharing group like Samaritan Ministries.  Find doctors who take patients who don’t have insurance.  Boycott any hospital or doctor involved in baby killing, sex change operations, Gardasil shots or any other immoral practice.

Don’t get social security numbers for your children.  Don’t encourage them to register with selective service or to get on any other government lists.  If things get really bad, don’t even get them birth certificates.

Homeschool your children.  Ask members of your church for help with this if you are not good at any particular subject or at teaching in general.  Teach your children morality, the Bible and how to survive in times of persecution.  Don’t allow ungodly people to brainwash them.  Don’t allow them to be put into situations where they will be unnecessarily tempted to sin, especially the sin of premarital sex.

I don’t recommend getting rid of land to avoid paying property taxes.  Those taxes will be paid no matter who owns the land.  It is best just to keep your property values as low as possible so that as little taxes as possible will wind up in the hands of the sodomites and baby killers.  Get off the grid and use solar energy instead. 

If you own a business, it is not necessarily wrong to hire non-Christian employees even if they are sodomites.  (Employing or doing business with a sodomite isn’t any worse than it is with any other sinner.)  But if the government gives them non-discrimination rights then watch out.  Be prepared and willing to lose your business for the sake of Christ.  Do not tolerate anything that is an incentive to commit sodomy.  If you are required to give the same benefits to same-sex partners as you do to real spouses of your employees, then don’t give any marriage benefits at all if this is an option for you.  Another option is to allow all employees to choose any other person (not necessarily a spouse) to receive the benefits.  Otherwise you must either defy the government or defy God.  Do not sell anything to a sodomite if you know that they are going to use the good or service in a same-sex marriage ceremony.  If you own a pharmacy, don’t sell drugs that can be used to murder babies.

Sell all stocks, mutual funds and bonds and don’t fall for bitcoin or other “alternative money” schemes.  Buy gold, silver, guns and ammo other tangible assets necessary for survival.    Use weapons only as a last resort to protect you and your family.  When necessary, employ non-violent forms of civil disobedience which do not infringe on the legitimate rights of others.  Be forgiving.  Search for a church with like-minded Christians preferably with the characteristics which will be described, Lord willing, in my next article.

SATURDAY SATIRE: The Great Wall of Donald Trump

Hat tip goes to Walter Cronkite @CronkiteSays on Twitter who "reported" this BREAKING NEWS: Donald Trump outlines his plan to build a wall to protect The American way of life.

Purging California

This would not be such a bad idea. A lot of the most seamy stuff originates in California especially Hollywood. So maybe a wall would slow down or prevent some of the worst of Governor Jerry "Moon Beam" Davis-led perverted and radical anti-American ideology and policies.

The Trump-It Sounds

Donald Trump is a super showman and wheeler-dealer, however, his candidacy for Presidential will be a relatively short-term phenomena. His campaign will burn out during or before the early primaries. He is performing a great service, however, in bringing to the forefront some of the major issues both the Democrat President and the Republican Congressional Leaders refuse to deal with or address or are going against the will of the majority of the  people.

In the End Trump is Not THE Answer

Immigration, indeed, is a very important issue and Trump has capitalized on Americans frustrations and is bringing attention to it. However, he is incoherent, undisciplined in addressing critical conservative social issues such as protecting Life or Marriage.  In my estimation Donald Trump is a closet Democrat who has found and is effectively using a "conservative" shtick, it is resonating for the time being with many Americans on a number of issues.