The Founding Father of the Kingdom of God - The Politics of Eternal Power

There's one thing about the Kingdom of God that differs from the Kingdoms of this World. The  Founding Father of the Kingdom of God and His Founding principles may be ignored, berated and denounced, but the citizens of the kingdom can always count on their King to maintainj power and authority. He is the only Eternal King of Glory, possessing all authority in heaven and earth. Long live King Jesus!

The Evidence for Christian America - Is Ignorance Bliss?

If the presence of Christian words, phrases and symbols on, in and around government buildings are evidence of the Christian heritage of the United States, what is the presence of many more Pagan words, phrases, and symbols on, in and around those same buildings evidence of?

Are professing Christians ignoring evidence of the origins of America?

The Constitution & The Bible - Religious Pluralism - An Inalienable Right From God??

Religious Pluralism - An Inalienable Right Given by God?

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....."

These words from the beginning of The Declaration of Independence are among the most well known and revered in all of history. While holding a special place in the hearts of people within many nations of the modern world, in no place are they held higher and closer than within the hearts of American Christians of most stripes.

I found out just how closely they are held and how highly thought of these words are yesterday in a conversation on Facebook. After being invited to the page of Ben Bush Sr, my Father by the way, I posted the following;

• "I've been asking this question for several years and have never received a response other than silence, even when the question was asked face to face. The question is this. ..........."If certain signs, symbols. words and phrases on government buildings and documents are to be considered legitimate evidence for the United States being a Christian Nation, what are the many more pagan signs, symbols, words and phrases on government buildings and documents to be taken as evidence of?"

The entire conversation can be accessed through the link in the above question.

The issue I want to point out regards Final Authority: Who or What is your Final Authority? This vital question has traditionally been answered by resorting to The Bible, self-identified as "The Word of God," as the final arbiter of beliefs and practice for all professing a relationship with God through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The above conversation, though, is a stark example of what takes place when the people of God attempt to interpret History, especially American History, without a prior acknowledgment of The Bible's statements about God, secular politics and the relationship of God's People to each one.

So, here's the rub. The Declaration espouses the particular tenet that all rights, inalienable rights specifically, come from God. That includes the Freedom of Religion, the right to worship God, to exercise their religion according to the dictates of a person's own heart, specified in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

It must be made clear that to believe this is not a problem. For this issue to be a matter of law is not a problem. The problem begins with the fact that God is identified as the origin of this right and approves of a person worshiping Him in any manner that person desires or chooses. The problem is consummated  by the fact that the Bible can never be the source for this supposed right originating from and being approved by God. In fact, the Bible reveals just the opposite.

Exodus 20:4-6

⁴ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
⁵ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
⁶ And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Soon after the giving of the Commandments to the children of Israel, they put YHWH's Word to the test when they became impatient from Moses' long stay on the mountain with YHWH. They took the matter of worship into their own hands and Aaron made the golden calf for their "feast unto the Lord". (Exodus 32:1-5)

The Golden Calf - Unapproved Worship of YHWH

When Moses returned, he was angry and asked the question, "Who is on the Lord's side?" Three thousand people died as a result of that disobedience as well as a plague being put on the people.

We can see that worship is a serious matter with God. In no way is the  manner of worship left to the thoughts of men. God specifically addresses all aspects so that nothing is left to conjecture. In fact, God specifically mentions the style and type of worship of the pagan nations surrounding them as being prohibited. Furthermore, God saw fit to put it in writing for the Nation of Israel and the rest of the World to know.

Even Jesus said that they that worship God must worship Him in spirit and truth. There is a right way and a wrong way.  

So, we can see that God in no way sanctions His Worship in any manner seen fit by man to choose. God has set the standards for men to approach Him in worship.

So, it can be seen that in worshiping the God of the Bible in truth, YHWH neither approves of nor agrees with the First Amendment Freedom of Religion according to the dictates of a man's heart. YHWH alone dictates how to worship Him.

For those who may be worried that the Founding Fathers of the United States were mistaken in their assertion that the inalienable rights of the Constitution, specified and unspecified, are given by God, the Bible does provide a certain amount of enlightenment. 

The Prophet Ezekiel tells us how YHWH deals with a people, a nation that despises His judgments and walks not in His Statutes. Chapter 20, verse 25 tells us that, "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good and judgments whereby they should not live."

So, when the Bible is allowed to speak, it tells us that the inalienable right of Freedom of Religion as articulated in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is nothing more than the judgment of God upon this nation. It's given to a people that have rejected the Law of God in their lives. In this case, it is given by God as a law, an inalienable right, that is "not good" and  one whereby we should "not live." Contrary to the thoughts of many, it is not given as a blessing from God, nor is it to be taken as a positive. The only way this right can be declared, as the Founders articulated in the Declaration,  as one of the "Laws" of "Nature's God" is as the judgment of God.

Politics - The Way of God, The Way of Man - Are They the Same?

The Bible says that Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived, thanks to his request and God's provision.

He made a statement that many times is quoted, but I wonder how much attention is paid to the details.

It begins this way, "There is a way that seems right to a man........"

Many issues today are approached, discussed, argued over, then decided based upon this one premise that "Well, it just seems the thing to do" or "It just seems the right way of thinking" and so on.

I find this true especially when it comes to political discussion. Most people are proceeding from a very similar mindset when the details of politics are discussed.

Among Christians, this way of thinking can sometimes seemingly be supported with a verse or two of Scripture. The result is that many think that, "Well, this way seems right for us as Christians, so that 's the way it's going to be." After all, who can argue against The Bible? That includes the Bible itself. If you bring up a verse that contradicts another verse quoted, many times they will fall back on the "it just seems right."

Couple this with the Subject of American History, specifically the Founding era, and it becomes almost impossible to engage in a true discussion because of the aura surrounding the Founding Fathers. Their wisdom is almost Divine itself, especially because they, too, used the Bible periodically to support certain policies. And, once again, pragmatism wins out. It just seems divinely right, the way God would want things to be. It just makes sense from God's point of View.

The problem with this is that God actually says in Isaiah that His Ways are higher than the ways of men, as far as the Heavens are from the Earth. And God's People are instructed to live according to God's Ways while on this earth, not the ways of men. Try inserting that into a conversation and see how far you get.

The rest of that verse from Solomon? Well, "........for the end thereof are the ways of death."

The Final Authority!

And you wonder why societies are crumbling around you? And you want to keep relying on "it just seems like the right way"? Following the herd will only get you the approval of the herd. I really want the approval of God, not because I think that seems like the right way, but because His Word tells me so. This is the same Word that has proven itself time and time again. It's veracity amazes me and I will continue to trust it and, at least, attempt to live by them, counting on His Blessings in my life. I also trust His Word to provide the understanding for all that is going on in this world, even in political discussions!

The Standard of American Liberty - Taxes, Tyranny & Jesus

How did Jesus resist Tyranny?

Within the realm of American Secular Politics, there remains one steadfast rule for the wanna be patriot, rebellion or resistance. The two are so closely allied, I group them together.

For those aligned with the idea of resistance being nothing more than pacifism, you will be disappointed with this post. But for the true Disciple of Jesus and Biblical ideas of resistance, this article will hopefully provide some Truth and Peaceful Understanding.

In a previous post, I dealt with the issue of a person paying taxes that they weren't legally required to pay, all for the simple reason of protecting the Tax Collector from legal harm. Next I want to very briefly introduce an idea that will leave many patriots probably feeling a bit uncomfortable, especially in their bid to return America to her Christian roots.

No Taxation w/o Representation

This issue was one of the Hallmarks of the American Revolution. In fact the Cry "No Taxation without Representation" was the official motto that accompanied it and the Founding Fathers' resistance to tyrannical taxes passed by King George and Parliament as well as the Officials in the Colonies having the duty of enforcing these edicts.

For those desiring to return to the Christian roots of America, I wonder how well the official policies of the Founders, as well as their actions, line up with the Words and actions of Jesus. Do they even come close to being the same?

The Bostonians Paying the Excise-Man, or Tarring and Feathering,
attributed to Philip Dawe, 1774, in the Colonial Williamsburg collection.

If Jesus would go so far as to pay a tax He didn't owe in order to protect the Tax Collector, I wonder if the Founders ever went this far in there dealings with officials and Governing Bodies? Surely there are examples within American History to justify this return to such lofty Christian ideals and actions, aren't there?

And surely, those espousing such resistance and rebellion would be most willing to point us to the loftiest standards, say, those of the Christ they would have us emulate, right?  And the example set by Patriots of old that also believed the words of Jesus and were willing to follow them, even in the face of further tyranny and even death? Please, let the prophet for American Patriotism speak from authority. May he disdain empty words and rhetoric not espoused by God in the flesh!

Obama's Stole Election? - Not So Fast! Republicans Did Their Part!

A Two Party Conspiracy?

For all who still think that this past Presidential election was stolen by Barack Obama via rampant voter fraud, here comes evidence maybe extremists of every political stripe can lend their ear to. Is it possible that Democrats and Republicans are in agreement when it comes to election results? Well, the courts have publicly recorded such an agreement. Can you guess what the facts are?

This article from World Net Daily says it all.

ObamaCare & Hobby Lobby - Religious Rights or Legal Standing?

Obamacare Mandate has many in a Legal Uproar

With the highly publicized case of Hobby Lobby's fight against President Obama's Health Care mandate comes polarizing viewpoints, especially in the fight against Government oppression. Many are citing the American Revolution as a guide for the ultimate resolution of this dilemma; yes, physical violence is being ultimately advocated as the only measure for reasonable citizens against the tyranny of Obama and this direct attack upon religious liberties.

While many may engage in various amounts and types of debate over this issue, there is a fundamental issue that everyone needs to be aware of. It's a legal reality of established law that most have never thought of. It's the issue of status before the court and the rights of individuals before a court.

Many are screaming about fundamental rights being violated by government, in this case the rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby. It is presumed that Hobby Lobby is a duly formed Corporation. As such, all officers of a corporation have a different legal status than that of a natural person. A person acting as a corporate officer is not guaranteed the same rights as a natural person. Why? Well, let this portion of a well established case provide the reason.

 The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.

 Hale v. Henkel - 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

 Do you think this tidbit of legal information might make a difference when asserting that Constitutional rights have been violated?

As Christians, we need to make sure that we understand certain issues before we proceed blindly and end up suffering as evildoers, rather than as Christians for true righteousness.

The First Official American Flag – Guess Who Saluted?

 

The American Flag, affectionately known as “Old Glory”, has a storied history and tradition dating all the way back to Betsy Ross. Unfortunately, not many are aware of the true beginnings of the ensign chosen to represent the work against King George and his British Redcoats. The story of its initial unfurling makes for interesting reading.

 In the finely crafted work of the late Tupper Saussy, Rulers Of Evil, we find the story of the creation of the official Flag for the 13 Colonies and the Official designs of Independence from British Rule, both Monarchial and Parliamentary. While official British policy through its governmental agencies was being rejected by the Founding Fathers, acceptance of British rule through Official economic entities was another matter entirely.

       

Rulers of Evil informs us of this account.

 “During the fall of 1775, Congress authorized a committee made up of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Lynch, Benjamin Harrison, and George Washington to consider and recommend a design for the first united colonial flag. The so-called Flag Committee traveled to Cambridge, Massachusetts. There, according the only known account of its proceedings, given in Robert Allen Campbell’s book Our Flag (Chicago, 1890), the committee mysteriously shared its authority with a complete stranger. This stranger was an elderly European transient known only as “the Professor.”……….

 At the evening session [December 13, 1775], Franklin turned the meeting over to “his new-found and abundantly honored friend.” The subject was a flag. Addressing the committee as “Comrade Americans,” the Professor explained that, since the colonies were still dependent upon Great Britain, “we are not expected to design or recommend a flag which will represent a new government or an independent nation,” but instead one “that will testify our present loyalty as English subjects,” a flag that was “already in use,” a flag that had been recognized by the British government for “half a century,” a flag having a field of alternate horizontal red and white stripes with the Grand Union Flag of Great Britain in the upper left hand corner.

 “I refer,” he said, “to the flag of the East India Company.”

To hide the fact that Americans would be fighting under the private flag of an international mercantile corporation controlled by Jesuits, the Professor provides a plausible cover whereby the flag could be “explained to the masses”:

 The Union Flag of the Mother Country is retained as the union [upper left corner] of our new flag to announce that the Colonies are loyal to the just and legitimate sovereignty of the British government. The thirteen stripes will at once by understood to represent the thirteen Colonies; their equal width will type the equal rank, rights and responsibilities of the Colonies. The union of the stripes in the field of our flag will announce the unity of interests and the cooperative union of efforts, which the Colonies recognize and put forth in their common cause. The white stripes will signify that we consider our demands just and reasonable; and that we will seek to secure our rights through peaceable, intelligent and statesmanlike means – it they prove at all possible; and the red stripes at the top and bottom of our flag will declare that first and last – and always – we have the determination, the enthusiasm, and the power to use force – whenever we deem force necessary. The alternation of the red and white stripes will suggest that our reasons for all demands will be intelligent and forcible, and that our force in securing our rights will be just and reasonable."

The Professor reminded the committee that “the masses of the people, and a large majority of the 

leaders of public opinion, desire a removal of grievances, and a rectification of wrongs, through a fuller recognition of their rights as British Subjects; and few of them desire and very few of them expect – at this time – any complete severance of their present political and dependent relations with the English Government.” That severance would occur “before the sun in its next summer’s strength” – indicating that the Professor foreknew………..a July declaration of independence. At that time, the East India Company flag could be “easily modified” by replacing the Union Jack with stars against a blue background, “to make it announce and represent the new and independent nation.”

 Washington and Franklin lavished the Professor’s idea with “especial approval and unstinted praise.” The committee formally and unanimously adopted the East India Company’s banner, known as “The Thirteen Stripes,” as the general flag and recognized standard of the Colonial Army and Navy.”……..

 On January 2, 1776, at a formal ceremony attended by the Flag Committee, George Washington personally hoisted the East India Company flag “upon a towering and specially raised pine tree liberty pole,” unfurling it to the breeze and displaying it for the first time “to his army, the citizens of the vicinity, and the British forces in Boston.” The British officers at Charleston Heights perceived the event

To mean that General Washington had thus announced his surrender to them. At once, they saluted  “The Thirteen Stripes” with thirteen hearty cheers. They immediately followed this spontaneous outburst of British Enthusiasm with the grander and more dignified official salute of thirteen guns, the thirteen gun salute being the highest compliment in gunpowder, the military “God speed you.”……The redcoats were toasting the good health of the rebels, who in turn were fighting for the East India Company.”

How many remember learning this tidbit of historical trivia from any history course? Yet, here it is! Can you fathom the significance of such an event, one that finds your enemy providing their highest military honor in the face of you unfurling the chosen emblem of your official military resistance? And how about the fact that the man who would later be chosen to General the Revolutionary forces and become known as The Father of America is the one actually lifting the ensign, the exact ensign of the mightiest entity ever created by the British Government, The East India Company?

Could it be that we've missed something in our details and understanding of the American Revolution? Is it possible for such details like this, that have been ignored by many, to begin to slowly paint an unfamiliar historical landscape for us to consider. Is it possible that historical fact as recorded by the original actors and spectators of American origins can undeceive modern American progeny?

Regardless, we should never fear the Truth!