tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189158812024-03-14T03:10:37.224-05:00Dollar Non¢entsPrimarily,
Proclaiming the Power of God unto salvation wherein the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith and the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness.
Secondarily,
Exposing the Respected Fraud & Beneficial Devastation perpetrated when debt is used as money.
Now if we could just use car exhaust for gasoline and ashes for our woodstoves.Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-31609435472654319192024-02-05T10:58:00.000-06:002024-02-05T10:58:32.863-06:00If Viruses Don't Exist, Why Are People Dying from COVID? <span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Dr. Bryan Ardis can be offputting in his presentation style, but the research he has uncovered is worth putting up with the nuisance of his style. He demonstrates COVID is a toxin synthesized from the venoms of snakes and snails. He also recommends a treatment that has helped many recover.<br /><br />
<a href="https://ccrpc.sharepoint.com/:v:/s/CivilMagistrateMatters/EcbKO8NaZmBDnN06ZGzikokBW3W5LJYQIiTB7-jixSsTTQ?e=mP94BB" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Bryan Ardis' Red Pill 2023 Presentation</a>
<br /><br /> </span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHblkf24csWWUkf0T0C3E3q-Yttzz4AMQEQf2egMAMIm7d2qj1Vco_M5NDX11OwC9_MnoRz5EytCCQrSTnZkgqFuj8Lgt-AxI86ph0__o-5VRnENG_QS6O47O3QQ6szGxeEKr78JrH62edAbigcXT4IBtOY6-AajXuNUVJzvyIB-cfKMj9y2Ww4A/s2640/Nicotine%20Treats%20COVID%20-%20Bryan%20Ardis%20RPE%202023.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1452" data-original-width="2640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHblkf24csWWUkf0T0C3E3q-Yttzz4AMQEQf2egMAMIm7d2qj1Vco_M5NDX11OwC9_MnoRz5EytCCQrSTnZkgqFuj8Lgt-AxI86ph0__o-5VRnENG_QS6O47O3QQ6szGxeEKr78JrH62edAbigcXT4IBtOY6-AajXuNUVJzvyIB-cfKMj9y2Ww4A/s600/Nicotine%20Treats%20COVID%20-%20Bryan%20Ardis%20RPE%202023.jpg"/></a></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-74679595223157496412024-02-05T10:37:00.003-06:002024-02-05T10:54:46.766-06:00Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Now Believes There Are No Respiratory Viruses<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Dr. Yeadon received his PhD at the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK. His thesis was in the respiratory system of rats. Yeadon worked at the Wellcome Research Laboratories, focusing on airway hyper-responsiveness and the effects of pollutants such as ozone and nitrogen oxide, as well as working on drug discovery of 5-LO and COX.
<br /><br />
He served as the chief scientist and vice-president of Pfizer's allergy and respiratory research unit in Sandwich, Kent, where he oversaw the development of drugs for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). During his work at Pfizer, Yeadon was responsible for the selection of targets and the progression of new molecules into human trials. His unit developed inhaled and oral NCEs that showed positive results in clinical trials for asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. When Pfizer closed its Kent research facility in 2011. Yeadon and with three colleagues founded the biotechnology company Ziarco which was sold to Novartis for $325 million in 2017.<br /> <br />
He now believes there is no evidence that viruses are pathogenic.
<br /> <br /></span>
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzhetTte71hfo531hPoYbxYzHAhC96c7AbbOc9D1OrP3nVcWRX3nPeTOKSJK4w1qnRFinhh8BuAK4I' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-62629694210712279762024-02-04T23:07:00.000-06:002024-02-04T23:07:34.197-06:00Eye Witness Testimony of Satanic Ritual Torture - Witness #2<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Jennifer Guskin was trafficked and forced to participate in Satanic ritual human sacrifices. In a 50 minute video pieced together from segments made over a period several months, Jennifer names her torturers and high level politicians who were blackmailed. Note: Her testimony has vulgarity.
<a href="https://ccrpc.sharepoint.com/:v:/s/CivilMagistrateMatters/Efuj-kd_eJhLiJwi7K5DPQUBMePnDpDLWkFEpT0GI2246Q?e=htDW4w" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Click here to watch Jennifer's Testimony.</a><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo6GYCRYlkzwSHJQOclN_8geNIr29hWAVFxz0nnKYQVGF65ufUqzoMX3j0ca1a0bLouH-vDqbuy1YUEmAvzQCSxzBVuys7Eja9dS0NuvXKvbal6V9wU4LnDvXFLvU_aT4jd5F9OzH49NMtj67VoZOYnGw1iBDuP_CUgSUfBVjxR3KCgz8uwBrd5g/s1767/Jennifer%20Guskin.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="1767" data-original-width="1095" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo6GYCRYlkzwSHJQOclN_8geNIr29hWAVFxz0nnKYQVGF65ufUqzoMX3j0ca1a0bLouH-vDqbuy1YUEmAvzQCSxzBVuys7Eja9dS0NuvXKvbal6V9wU4LnDvXFLvU_aT4jd5F9OzH49NMtj67VoZOYnGw1iBDuP_CUgSUfBVjxR3KCgz8uwBrd5g/s320/Jennifer%20Guskin.jpg"/></a></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-24592173419084831862024-01-28T22:36:00.007-06:002024-01-28T22:42:52.664-06:00Eye Witness Testimony of Satanic Ritual Torture - Witness #1<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
This is gut wrenching and heart rending testimony by a survivor of highly organized, long term, systemic demonic atrocities of every kind of evil known to Satan and his followers. The reason it concerns you and I is that a large number of world leaders, including popes (one of whom is named in Toos' testimony), entertainers, and leaders who are thought to be Christians are participants.<br />
<a href="https://ccrpc.sharepoint.com/:v:/s/CivilMagistrateMatters/EeJtf_IAjc9EmzM0reSTYRwB1Jo75XZlJThtFI2RX-UXjw?e=ctG8th" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Testimony of Toos Nijenhuis - Part 1</a><br />
<a href="https://ccrpc.sharepoint.com/:v:/s/CivilMagistrateMatters/EUsHq0yh9WhIpzD8lvcKD3gBE5iAYLtpcceSgG0t0knPLg?e=L18oxc" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Testimony of Toos Nijenhuis - Part 2</a><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrD4FNHL2C5JGURt3g0lwH3DJwE5xIHpB8DHJwCqbvXNXpNUhz8ECm_hABQnNQZdftZF3mgq47o9PvwQi2a8dGo5A0SiL_bM66yDLfjrIcQHvS38LtM_Fcss0HhdE5kEv18w0dIGKIjZGAxQi-oe-yd_di2aE44oTTwMNjzsJQgfCWZr_2cQ-3Ig/s2580/Toos%20Nijenhuis%20Picture.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1367" data-original-width="2580" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrD4FNHL2C5JGURt3g0lwH3DJwE5xIHpB8DHJwCqbvXNXpNUhz8ECm_hABQnNQZdftZF3mgq47o9PvwQi2a8dGo5A0SiL_bM66yDLfjrIcQHvS38LtM_Fcss0HhdE5kEv18w0dIGKIjZGAxQi-oe-yd_di2aE44oTTwMNjzsJQgfCWZr_2cQ-3Ig/s400/Toos%20Nijenhuis%20Picture.png"/></a></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-32295676690831770562024-01-21T21:44:00.004-06:002024-01-21T22:07:53.803-06:00 Wow! This Blew My Mind!<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Suppose you bought a car from a dealer cash over the barrel, thinking you were avoiding not only any personal debt, but also any encumbrance that could cloud the title or impair your ownership of the vehicle. But unbeknownst to you, the dealer had, without your knowledge or consent, pledged your vehicle as collateral so that when the dealer later became insolvent, all the cars he had sold were seized by creditors in payment of his debts. That would jar every bone in your body as grossly and patently unjust. It would violate every principle of property rights.<br /><br />
Yet according to David Webb, this is exactly analogous to the situation that now exists globally with all digital securities. There are no countries anywhere in the world where the purchasers of digital securities have any property rights that attach to them.<br /><br />
In his compelling documentary, the Great Taking, he explains in ample detail, citing the actual documents, exactly how this Great Taking was “legally” effected. The key metric that has guided him throughout his former career as a money manager is the velocity of money. Today this is the lowest it has been since 1900. That means the abilility of the Fed to drive the economy by injecting more of their self created notes is failing and failing fast. <br /><br />
You can watch his <a href="https://ccrpc.sharepoint.com/:v:/s/CivilMagistrateMatters/EXhf__fZl6BAs1unbis1Er8BimFM_qRc9die86_zvreVfw?e=QoTmg7" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">compelling presentation here.</a> He also provides a link to get a free pdf copy of the book.<br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1gXk0G64nBgtomBK7i76MYATc1pOEEbBRm9CwWcHpxRmVLidYhYpEkVWmuQBVbHhI9VosyLzEt996T7Lh6tajlDfW8nVc11eN7ERc968vVyM9fe9cYwQEuMuV9y9DAiEpoG8W-Gguvwo5Duf_zxBCIoF-CRohb8JwvjK_F8r2fvCtOcDw6_AGfg/s1965/Velocity%20of%20Money%20Graph.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1170" data-original-width="1965" height="351" width="590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1gXk0G64nBgtomBK7i76MYATc1pOEEbBRm9CwWcHpxRmVLidYhYpEkVWmuQBVbHhI9VosyLzEt996T7Lh6tajlDfW8nVc11eN7ERc968vVyM9fe9cYwQEuMuV9y9DAiEpoG8W-Gguvwo5Duf_zxBCIoF-CRohb8JwvjK_F8r2fvCtOcDw6_AGfg/s600/Velocity%20of%20Money%20Graph.png"/></a></div>
<div style="clear:both"/><p><span style="font-size: large;">Credit: Annual velocity of money, from 1900 to the first quarter of 2021. Digitized from a plot published by Hoisington Management. Data sources stated in the original: Federal Reserve Board; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Bureau of the Census; The American Business Cycle, Gordon, Balke, and Romer. from The Great Taking by David Webb</span></p>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-85503435701500169162023-11-15T22:56:00.002-06:002023-11-15T23:33:52.848-06:00How to Find Actual Election Fraud & What you can do about it!<p> <span style="font-size: large;">While a number of big names were preaching to the choir about all manner of voting irregularities, filing lawsuits that went nowhere, and debating the evidence for and against stolen elections on social media, one man was busy analyzing the data. Not the meaningless bits and bytes arranged and transmitted according to various internet protocols, but actual voter fraud. He analyzed the data for over 3000 counties, testified under oath to a number of state legislatures, and spent days with several secretaries of state. This is his story. But more importantly, this is what John Q. Citizen can do about it with just the ability to walk and talk. Have a look.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://ccrpc.sharepoint.com/:v:/s/CivilMagistrateMatters/EaRRCQU1uShJk-yMwvln5XkBM3VoVUSbTCEBviDkLlERLw?e=Wfgc2f" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dr. Douglas Frank at the Red Pill Expo 2023</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href=""C:\Documents\Media\Screenshots\Screenshot 2023-11-15 225113.png"" rel="nofollow" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1548" data-original-width="3494" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglktNEFR7Yn6oWS84prXDVNBCvmcyjKCQkPOhrSfcYqFVU6803x1lhcW-MeoZrsfBLZ4YfDUAJgn4RH_JwhnKcWyG8najyW-LTSpf9n6sx4oZkxgKa-C9ZwcaGiRcCJ1Crs1JfpzAZonvYTRSnZsQgp_eIdxTC7V-rXknwBW0Ve3FMG44dWgHZWQ/w663-h293/Screenshot%202023-11-15%20225113.png" width="663" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /> <br /></span><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-7924577505451319942023-07-03T17:38:00.001-05:002023-07-03T17:38:54.646-05:00Nigel Farage's Bank of 40 years Closes ALL His Accounts!<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG6ysWlle9JkxSOfx-FXqGg2p6Y7wm-p-xVh_4leCqm4DqL0bUx1OIm2E58he_LfgIZnJasuGYwpZmZ7caPeuy5u8hALYx4G8_wj_GMSsDeoGT2PhfAt1aC_eYkmqe04pXlkx2P4ITJP1QfxqIa_X6b3HWVcze5LLrSNXWRYw6h918uRi6SDNdZQ/s2185/farage%20cancelled.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; clear: left; float: right;"><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1115" data-original-width="2185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG6ysWlle9JkxSOfx-FXqGg2p6Y7wm-p-xVh_4leCqm4DqL0bUx1OIm2E58he_LfgIZnJasuGYwpZmZ7caPeuy5u8hALYx4G8_wj_GMSsDeoGT2PhfAt1aC_eYkmqe04pXlkx2P4ITJP1QfxqIa_X6b3HWVcze5LLrSNXWRYw6h918uRi6SDNdZQ/s400/farage%20cancelled.jpg"/></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: large;"> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/watch?v=64a33f0eb1e81dc9b6951f12" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Nigel Farage's Bank of 40 years closes all his accounts.</a> Nine (9) other banks also refused to handle his accounts (at the time of this video it was only 7). This is happening to more and more people, even private citizens. Not only do the people not know why, even the local bank personnel are not being told the reason in the cases with which I am familiar. </span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-69512084454872549002022-07-20T22:35:00.014-05:002022-11-30T18:10:41.121-06:00Techies Critical of Crypto?<span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: large;">Recently 1500 tech experts signed a letter to some leading Congressional officials regarding their concerns with crypto-currencies. They come from a wide range of industry leading tech firms and organizations - Apple, Microsoft, Google, MIT, Amazon, Mozilla, Cisco, Purdue, Columbia University to name a few. I have long considered crypto to be another fiat currency that doesn't solve the fundamental problems with fiat currencies, but I thought they might provide some privacy. However, after the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/colonial-pipeline-hack-how-fbi-recover-ransom-money" target="_blank">Fed was able to recover most of the ransom money that Colonial Pipeline</a> paid the ransom ware attackers, I realized it provides no privacy from those that matter most. Now it seems, tech experts are saying even the technology is not all it's cracked up to be. <br /><br />They say:<br /><ul><li><i>We strongly disagree with the narrative—peddled by those with a financial
stake in the crypto-asset industry—that these technologies represent a
positive financial innovation and are in any way suited to solving the
financial problems facing ordinary Americans.
</i></li><br />
<li><i>
Not all innovation is unqualifiedly good; not everything that we can build
should be built. The history of technology is full of dead ends, false
starts, and wrong turns. Append-only digital ledgers are not a new
innovation. They have been known and used since 1980 for rather limited
functions.
</i></li><br />
<li><i>
As software engineers and technologists with deep expertise in our fields,
we dispute the claims made in recent years about the novelty and potential
of blockchain technology. Blockchain technology cannot, and will not, have
transaction reversal or data privacy mechanisms because they are
antithetical to its base design. Financial technologies that serve the
public must always have mechanisms for fraud mitigation and allow a
human-in-the-loop to reverse transactions; blockchain permits neither.</i></li></ul>Read more - <a href="https://concerned.tech/" target="_blank">https://concerned.tech/</a></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-1383131214037847602022-06-20T16:31:00.018-05:002022-11-05T10:52:43.900-05:00Did the RUD Voters Break the Law?<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
This case was also covered by the same author in <a href="https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/woodlands/news/article/Heath-s-Woodlands-RUD-voter-fraud-conviction-9756597.php" rel="nofollow" target="blank">Woodlands-RUD-voter-fraud-conviction</a><br />
For an overview of this case, watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kjxz1tmrrs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dirty Judge Reiter and the Long Knives</a><br /><br />
Did the RUD voters break the law? Let's take a look at the law on residency and how it has been interpreted by Texas courts when they have been asked to do so.<br /><br />
The Texas election code specifies the following requirements for eligibility to vote:<br /> Sec. 11.001. ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, to be eligible to vote in an election in this state,<br /> a person must:<br />
<ul>(1) be a qualified voter as defined by Section 11.002 on the day the person offers to vote;<br />
(2) be a resident of the territory covered by the election for the office or measure on which the person desires to vote; and<br />
(3) satisfy all other requirements for voting prescribed by law for the particular election.</ul>
In Sec 11.002 it further defines a qualified voter as:<br />
Sec. 11.002. QUALIFIED VOTER. (a) In this code, "qualified voter" means a person who:<br />
<ul>(1) is 18 years of age or older;<br />
(2) is a United States citizen;<br />
(3) is not mentally incompetent <br />
(4) has not been finally convicted of a felony<br />
(5) is a resident of this state; and<br />
(6) is a registered voter.</ul>
No one disputes that Adrian met all the requirements to be a “qualified voter’ as it is statutorily defined. The dispute centers over the second requirement of Sec 11.001 – that of being a resident of the territory covered by the election. So let’s look more closely at the statutory definition of residency.
Residency is defined as follows in the election code:<br />
Sec. 1.015. RESIDENCE. (a) In this code, "residence" means domicile, that is, one's home and fixed place of habitation to which <br /> one intends to return after any temporary absence.<br />
<ul>(b) Residence shall be determined in accordance with the common-law rules, as enunciated by the courts of this state, except as otherwise provided by this code.<br />
(c) A person does not lose the person's residence by leaving the person's home to go to another place for temporary purposes only.<br />
(d) A person does not acquire a residence in a place to which the person has come for temporary purposes only and without the intention of making that place the person's home.<br />
(e) A person who is an inmate in a penal institution or who is an involuntary inmate in a hospital or eleemosynary institution does not, while an inmate, acquire residence at the place where the institution is located.</ul>
<br />
To define “residence” as one’s home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence sounds pretty straightforward – until one begins to think of all the possibilities that this definition must cover. <br /><br />
For example, what if I own two homes in the state and spend time in both of them? What if I rent two homes in different parts of the county and spend time in both of them? What if I rent one home and own another home in the same county and spend time in both of them with no intent to divest either? What about college students living in dorms during the school year but coming to their parent’s residence on weekends or holidays? What if someone doesn’t own or rent any home in the county (or anywhere else) but sleeps between the air conditioner and the building it conditions, as one man does where our church meets, and spends his days roaming downtown Conroe? What is his residence – where he sleeps or where he spends the day? Is the homeless man disenfranchised because he doesn’t own or rent any property? How does a resident determine between two or more homes which one is his residence for voting purposes? Is it the one at which he spends more time, on average? Is it the one at which he presently spends very little time, but to which he hopes to retire one day? Is it the house he recently bought right next to work and where he stays Monday through Thursday night or is it the one he has owned for a long time, where he spends Friday night through Sunday night, and to which he intends to live full time some time? Is it the one that is owned instead of rented? Is the college student’s residence the dorm or their parent’s house? <br /><br />
These sorts of questions are why the law goes on to provide further clarification on how one’s residence is to be determined. The second paragraph of the statutory definition of residence in Sec 1.015 states that “Residence shall be determined in accordance with the common-law rules, as enunciated by the courts of this state, except as otherwise provided by this code.”<br /><br />
Although most people quickly form opinions about what home should be the “residence” for voting purposes, the opinion of the “third party man on the street” is not a component of the statutory definition of residence. The meaning of residence is to be determined by the common law rules as enunciated by the courts of this state. What are the common law rules on residency as enunciated by this state?<br /><br />
One place to start is the formal legal opinion on this question issued by Gov. Abbot when he was Attorney General.
He writes in <a href="http://www./blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/OAG_%28Abbot%29_Opinion_Letter_RE_Residency_GA-0141.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Opinion No. GA-0141 issued February 4, 2004</a>:<br />
<ul>In the leading Texas Supreme Court case of Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1964), the court declared that the meaning of the term “residence” for voting purposes “depends upon the circumstances surrounding the person involved and largely depends upon the present intention of the individual. Volition, intention and action are all elements to be considered in determining where a person resides and such elements are equally pertinent in denoting the permanent residence or domicile. . . Neither bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and determined.” There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue.</ul><br />
The fact that, under Texas law, residence is determined by the coincidence of bodily presence and the voter’s intention seems absurd to most reasonably intelligent people. But that is how courts have consistently ruled when asked to define residence. Abbot summarizes this in his own words, saying:<br />
<ul>Under current law, the determination regarding “residence” thus involves both physical presence and current intention of the applicant; <br />
For example, let us assume that two students, Student A and Student B, live in the same college dormitory. Student A, who is living in the dormitory and is therefore physically present for purposes of voter registration yet intends his residence to remain the same as that of his parents, can permissibly register to vote in the county of his parent’s residence. … On the other hand, Student B, who is living in the same dormitory as Student A yet who intends that the dormitory be his residence for purposes of voter registration, can permissibly register to vote in the county where his dormitory is located.</ul><br />
Quoting from another court case , Abbot’s formal legal opinion goes on to acknowledge that while the Registrar of Voters does have statutory authority under the Election Code to make factual determinations of whether voter applicants are bona fide residents of the county, they were prohibited from determining applicants were not residents of the county for any of the following reasons:<br />
<ul>A. That such person resides in a dormitory at Prairie View A&M University;<br />
B. That such person owns no property in Waller County;<br />
C. That such person is a student at Prairie View University;<br />
D. That such applicant has no employment or promise of employment in Waller County;<br />
E. That such applicant previously lived outside Waller County, or may live outside Waller County after his graduation;<br />
F. That such person visits the home of his parents, or some other place during holidays and school vacations.</ul><br />
Gov. Abbot concludes his formal legal opinion with the statement that “The intention of the voter registration applicant is crucial to a proper determination of residence, and every person is strongly presumed to have ‘the right and privilege of fixing his residence according to his own desires.’” <br /><br />
Although the opinion of the “third party man on the street” is not a component of the statutory definition of residence, it does figure prominently in the jury box. As district attorneys like to remind us, they can indict a ham sandwich. They can do so by controlling the flow of information to the grand jury. In the same way, by preventing this information from effectively getting to the jury and depending on the natural inclination of the man-on-the-street to rely on their commonsense opinion of how “residence” is to be defined, prosecuting attorney Mr. Glickler, with the cooperation of the judge, was easily able to get a conviction.<br /><br />
A few weeks before the AG issued this legal opinion, the Texas Secretary of State had also delivered a legal opinion to the governor on this identical question (<a href="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/SOS_GSC-1_1-22-2004.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Election Law Opinion GSC –1, January 22, 2004</a>). The Secretary of State (SOS) is authorized by statute to obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election code. He is required to do this by preparing detailed and comprehensive written directives and instructions relating to this code. His written interpretation of election law carries statutory weight. Obviously he can’t contradict election law, but where there is ambiguity, his understanding is the operative understanding of the code and case law.<br /><br />
The question the SOS was asked by the governor was, “What is the proper interpretation and application of Section 1.015 of the Code in the context of voter registration by, and “residency” of college students, …” The SOS reached the same conclusion as the AG.<br /><br />
His short answer is, “The definition of residence for the purpose of voter registration is well settled in Texas.” He then goes on to provide the same answer as the AG gave, drawing from some of the same case laws and a number of additional ones. After noting that residency can’t be determined by any one factor, he states,
<ul>“The majority of Texas courts have consistently ruled that residency is a combination of intention and fact, and that the voter’s intention must be reviewed to make a final determination of residence.” </ul><br />
A couple of other relevant statements from that opinion are:
<ul>“…we caution other officials and those conducting voter registration drives against seeking to influence the voter’s choice of a residence address. The presumption is not in favor of the parents’ home or the college home; rather, the presumption is in favor of the voter’s own assessment of the facts and his or her intent.” <br />
“In sum, when a student registers to vote and describes his or her permanent residence in Texas for voting purposes, the presumption is in favor of the voter’s factual statement on the face of the application.” <br />
“We note that a common complaint about students and other voters who travel is the concern that these voters will not consider the residence location on the application to be their home in the future (e.g., five years from the application date). No applicant is required to assert such a future durational intention when registering to vote. … An applicant filling out a Texas voter registration form is not required to state that the residence will be his or her home forever, or for the next five years, or even the next year.” </ul><br />
According to both the SOS and the AG, it is well settled that there is no need for the voter to intend to remain at the residence for any specific duration into the future and there is no duration for which a prospective voter must have resided at the residence in the past in order for that residence to qualify as the voting residence. A residence becomes the voting residence once there is bodily presence coupled with an intent to return, if absent.<br /><br />
Mr. Glickler argued that these principles only applied to college students and RV'ers. But that is contrary to the explicit statements in the SOS’s legal opinion. The principles apply equally to all people. There isn’t a separate principle for determining residence for college students and RV'ers from any other prospective voter. In his formal opinion, the Texas Secretary of State wrote:
<ul>No more or less can be required of college students during the voter registration process than any other Texas voter.
These principles apply equally to college students as well as other voters, and no more can be required of them in order for them to register and vote in the State of Texas.</ul><br />
But the evidence in support of Adrian doesn’t stop here. <br /><br />
Adrian had several discussions with Joseph Kulhavy, who at the time was the elections attorney for the SOS, about election law and the definition of voter residence. Adrian relied on what he learned in these conversation in acquiring a second residence inside the RUD and voting in the 2010 election. In a conversation a couple of years after the election and civil trial that overturned the election results because the voters who voted against the incumbents were “fraudulent voters”, Mr. Kulhavy characterized the whole affair as “Dirty judge, dirty developer, dirty everybody,…”
In fuller context his comments were:
<ul>“The decision [i.e. P.K. Reiter decision in the civil case on the RUD election] was contrary to decades of court decisions about residency issues and was really an outlier.”<br /><br />
“The way I read it was, Developer is mad that their nose has been tweaked by some people who were protesting the profoundly undemocratic way that property taxes are imposed in Texas, and their embarrassment is such … that they call up their best buddy, someone who has close political ties to them and say, hey Judge, we need you to make an example of these people.”<br /><br />
“Utterly politically motivated, intellectually bankrupt decision that could not be reconciled with the way we generally view residence. What is it about you that they would say, “When he says that’s his residence he is just lying? Excuse me! To accuse someone of fraud goes beyond saying they just misunderstood or that there has been some confusion on the law. Most prosecutors won’t touch a residency dispute with a 10 foot pole because they know that they will lose.” <br /><br />
“So to go so far in a civil case …[in] throwing out the election, (and excuse me, isn’t there a presumption in favor of a valid election and upholding the election results)… there would need to be extraordinary facts…..”<br /><br />
“Voters [in the RUD] are presumptively not eligible unless they have been vetted by the developer, given the OK, the secret handshake. [That’s] the snotty arrogance of the decision that bothered me so much.”<br /><br />
“Dirty Judge, dirty developer, dirty everybody, If you’re that scared, if you create such a powerful incentive to run a dirty election, then you should ask why are you developing that land that way in the first place?”</ul><br />
So the RUD voters have Texas case law on their side, they have the then sitting election attorney for the Secretary of State at the time calling the civil ruling that found the voters were fraudulent “a politically driven, intellectually bankrupt ruling, that trampled decades of election case law” and calling the judge who made the ruling a “dirty judge,” and they have a number of upstanding citizens in the community (some 300 apparently) who signed a petition calling for his pardon and release. <br /><br />
But even if all these people are wrong, there is still one insurmountable fact of law in light of which Adrian should have been found not guilty. That fact is “mistake of law.”<br />
Adrian believed he was a lawfully qualified voter in that 2010 RUD election because:
<ul>The Texas SOS attorney for elections thought he could do what he did. <br />The legal opinions of the AG and SOS assert he could do what he did. <br />The Woodlands developers did what he did - moved 3 people into the RUD to vote in the first RUD election in 1990. <br />Other developers routinely did and still do the same thing. <br />Dirk and Kate Laukien, the people who own the building in which the RUD board used to meet, did the exact same thing – changed their voting residence to a commercial building in the RUD (and it was not even built or intended to be used as a residence unlike the Residence Inn) to vote in the same RUD election. </ul><br />I would submit that is more than enough evidence for someone to reasonably believe that what they are doing is lawful.<br />
In reaching that opinion, Adrian relied on an interpretation of the law given by two agencies that are responsible for administering or enforcing the law and an attorney responsible for interpreting election law. That should qualify for a <a href="https://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/MistakeofLaw.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mistake of law defense</a> by itself. But making the case even stronger is that knowledge of the law is an element of the crime itself. To commit the crime of illegal voting, the voter must vote in an election in which the voter knows he is not eligible to vote.<br /><br />
If Adrian sincerely believed he was eligible to vote in the election and had good basis for the belief he was eligible, e.g. such as seeking the advice of the Texas elections attorney, then even if he is wrong about his belief, he doesn’t meet the elements of the crime which requires knowingly voting in an election in which one is not entitled to vote. This is a significant element not present is many other common felonies. Felony theft does not require the thief to “know” that he committing burglary, he just has to intend to remove the property from the premises. That intent is proven by his action of removing the property from the premises.<br /><br />
In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t agree with this law and I don’t like this law. I think there should be a residency duration requirements to be eligible to vote and that one should have to own property in the district to be eligible to vote in that district. But that is not the law. The law says there is no duration of residency either before or after registration to be a qualified voter. I do believe in the rule of law. If the RUD board didn’t like the law, they should work to change it, not use the law to their own advantage and prosecute other people who use it to their (i.e. the RUD's) disadvantage.<br /><br />
Also in the interest of full disclosure, I know Adrian and some of the other 10 voters, two of whom were my sons. Further in the interest of full disclosure, the polical forces driving this prosecution should be noted. After the county district attorney declined to proseute on the grounds that no law had been broken, this case would never have been criminally prosecuted without <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20191122192139/http://www.texaswatchdog.org:80/2012/08/texas-state-sen-tommy-williams-aided-lawyers-filing-voter-fraud-woodlands/1345648840.story" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Texas State Senator Tommy Williams'</a> personal involvement <a href="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/Williams-Email-to-Stilwell-9-15-10.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">advocating prosecution</a> by the Texas Attorney General's office. As usual, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20120714020148/http://texaswatchdog.org/2012/07/woodlands-residents-tangle-with-powerful-forces-over-voter-fraud/1341848133.story" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">just follow the money</a>.
<span>
</span></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-3712482224765838382021-03-17T18:12:00.006-05:002022-11-05T10:39:41.323-05:00Christians Are Funding Their Own Demise by Handing Their Data Over to "Big Tech"<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> <span><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is copied from Andrew Tabula's blog:</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Gab has been banned from three different banks over the course of the
past three weeks. We operate a legal US business. We sell a software
license to our GabPRO service along with hats, shirts, mugs, and other
merchandise. The latest bank told us they are terminating our account
because “the media has written bad things about your business.” </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The digital and economic secession and segregation is already
happening and Gab is proof of that. Gab is the test case for the
oligarchs, they will soon start attacking churches and Christian
organizations in the same way that Gab has been persecuted for nearly
five years now. Perhaps this secession will become geographic next. Time
will tell, but personally I’m mentally prepared for it. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">We didn’t choose this, the psychopathic oligarchs in the American
regime did. We will gladly embrace it and no longer associate with
wickedness and their death cult of communism and critical theory. They
can keep their drag queen story hours, 87 genders, degeneracy, moral
depravity, and endless chaos. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">We choose our humanity, freedom, order, and Jesus.</span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is, of course, exactly why those in power are attacking Gab.
Tens of millions of Christians are using Gab’s services every month to
unite and access an uncensored free flow of information that can’t be
found anywhere else on the internet. Many of them are waking up to the
wickedness of the oligarch regime and once that happens it’s only a
matter of time before their system is toppled. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">It’s important to understand that it’s not just Gab under attack,
it’s Christianity in general. Here are some recent examples from the
press: <br /></span></span></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.rawstory.com/white-christian-nationalism/">The Republican embrace of white Christian nationalism and the decomposing trajectory of the GOP</a></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br /><span><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Christian-nationalism-and-its-role-in-15941456.php" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Christian nationalism and its role in insurrection and impeachment</a></span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/31/christian-nationalism-josh-hawley-ted-cruz-capitol-attack-column/4292193001/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Christian nationalism is a threat, and not just from Capitol attackers invoking Jesus</a></span></span> </li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/quick-to-listen/christian-nationalism-capitol-riots-trump-podcast.html" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Christian Nationalism Is Worse Than You Think</a></span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/02/19/969351648/new-survey-shows-3-in-5-white-evangelicals-say-joe-biden-wasnt-legitimately-elec" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">New Survey Shows 3 In 5 White Evangelicals Say Joe Biden Wasn’t Legitimately Elected</a></span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.cfr.org/conference-calls/rise-christian-nationalism" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">The Rise of Christian Nationalism</a></span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://dailycollegian.com/2021/02/christian-nationalism-poses-a-major-threat-to-american-democracy/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Christian nationalism poses a major threat to American democracy</a></span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/capitol-christian-right-trump-1121236/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">How the Christian Right Helped Foment Insurrection</a></span></span></li></ul><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">As you can see brothers and sisters, Christianity is under an all out assault from the American oligarch regime, but why? </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The answer is simple: they want us divided against one another by
race, political parties, and more because if we unite together in Christ
we will topple their wicked regime to take our country and culture
back. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">They push this hateful concept of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/15/white-christian-america-is-dying/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">“white Christians dying”</a>
to demoralize all Christians. The reality is Christians of all races
are the absolute majority in the United States. Imagine if we united
together in Christ against the demon of communism and the wicked
American oligarch regime. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">We can win this war without a single act of violence. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">All we need to do is <a href="https://news.gab.com/2021/02/17/its-time-to-build-our-own-economy/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">build our own economy</a>
and exit their wicked system. We need to realize that the most powerful
weapon we have against these people in power is not voting or violence.
</span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">It’s our wallet, our data, and our time. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Christians are funding their own demise by spending their precious
time watching immoral and degenerate critical theory indoctrination in
their homes. Cut the cable cord. Stop watching “woke” sports and TV.
Stop making money for the Enemy. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Christians are funding their own demise by spending their hard-earned money with “woke” corporate brands like <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/coca-cola-diversity-training-urged-workers-to-be-less-white/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Coke who want them to be “less white.”</a> Stop buying these products and services. Stop making money for the Enemy. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Christians are funding their own demise by handing over all of their
data to Big Tech platforms and services. If you are using Silicon Valley
services you are the product being sold. You are the digital serf on
their data mining plantation. Stop making money for the Enemy. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">If Christians realize these three things and take immediate
collective action the Enemy’s entire system would collapse without a
single act of violence. This is why they are attacking Christ indirectly
right now as evidenced by some of the links above. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Let me ask you a question: who does the Chinese Communist Party fear?
Is it the American government? The European Union? Russia? No, <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/chinas-communist-leaders-fear-christians-may-rise-to-30-million.html" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">the answer is Jesus Christ.</a> There are now nearly more Christians in China than there are people in the United States. Praise the Lord! </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Who do the oligarchs in the American regime fear? Jesus Christ. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Christ will take dominion over China, the United States, and the rest
of the world. It’s not a question of if, but when. As God’s Chosen
People Christians need to unite together now more than ever and take
collective action against the Enemy by exiting the existing and corrupt
system to build our own. </span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Andrew Torba<br />CEO, Gab.com<br />February 25th, 2021<br />Jesus is King</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-10814658317655620032020-12-11T01:09:00.005-06:002022-06-23T01:05:50.362-05:00Dr. Roger Hodkinson gives an Edmonton, Alberta City Counsel Committee the straight scoop on COVID-19<span style="font-family: verdana;font-size: 14px">Listen to Dr. Roger Hodkinson, one of Canada’s top pathologists, tell an Edmonton, Alberta City Counsel Committee the COVID-19 pandemic is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public”
Hodkinson also pointed out that PCR tests cannot cannot distinguish between an infectious virus and non-viable genetic material and therefore mass testing should cease immediately. He also slammed social distancing and universal mask wearing as useless "virtue signaling."<br /><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/prorege/view/dr-roger-hodkinson-gives-an-edmonton-6041b106c744c62827ed232a" target="_blank"> Click to Play</a></span><a href="<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/DrRogerHodkinson.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: left; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="590" data-original-width="800" src="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/DrRogerHodkinson.JPG"/></a></div></a><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-12896957405399357982020-12-09T17:24:00.012-06:002022-06-23T01:10:19.755-05:00What is Cycle Threshold and Why Is It Important to correctly interpret COVID19 Tests?<span style="font-family: verdana;font-size: 14px">This is one of the better explanations of how the PCR (polymerse chain reaction) process works including the significance of the number of amplification cycles that are used and the adverse impact that incorrect use of the test has on fighting COVID19 infections. <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/prorege/view/what-is-cycle-threshold-and-why-6041b42e3f8c7f2bd71c7667" target="_blank"> Click to play</a><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/Ct-vs-ppc.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="800" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="800" src="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/Ct-vs-ppc.jpg"/></a></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-51895088233887239492020-12-06T22:11:00.010-06:002022-11-30T18:12:17.545-06:00A Former Communist Military Doctor's Perspective on COVID19 Vaccines<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="font-size: large;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is a barn-burner talk about the COVD19 vaccine given by Dr. Igor Sherpherd, a former military doctor in Communist Russia. With his extensive background in Soviet military bio-warfare and vaccination he is a uniquely qualified and important witness regarding the significance of the frenzied and premature development and launch of COVID 19 vaccines.</span></span><br /><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qlZBaBZQYZU/X82uDLz__2I/AAAAAAAAD8w/ZkCVMl9faoIq463WHQK6pwUXzv-sMmt6QCLcBGAsYHQ/s849/Igor%2BShepherd.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="849" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qlZBaBZQYZU/X82uDLz__2I/AAAAAAAAD8w/ZkCVMl9faoIq463WHQK6pwUXzv-sMmt6QCLcBGAsYHQ/w320-h179/Igor%2BShepherd.JPG" width="320" /></a></span></div><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;"><br /> </span><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;"> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/kWQ0SMMKF0sn/" target="_blank">Stream</a></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Dr. Igor Shepherd, M.D. is currently a Readiness and Countermeasures Program Manager at the Wyoming Department of Health Preparedness and Response Unit in Cheyenne, Wyoming and is on the Wyoming COVID Response team. In this role he works with the Center for Disease Control to prepare and review Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement applications, strategic plans, progress reports, data, and deliverables. He also provides monthly briefings for the State Essential Function Partners and Health and Human Services representatives. Before working for the state of Wyoming, he worked in various other emergency preparedness jobs and also at a Nevada Nuclear Test Site for Counter-terrorism Operations where he was involved in technical research and development on national domestic preparedness and nuclear security for Department of Justice, Office for Domestic Preparedness, DHS, DOE, NNSA, DOD, DTRA, FEMA, National Guard, Tactical SWAT teams, law enforcement, first responders, and medical professionals.<br /><br />
His academic credentials are also relevant to the role of vaccination in pubic health:<br /><br />
<b>Education:</b><br />
</span></span></span><ul><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><b>Ministry of Health College of Advanced Training of Medical Personnel #1 </b><br />
Suplement certifications to doctoral degree in medicine<br />
Epidemiology, infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS (1991 – 1992)<br /><br />
<b>Russian Ministry of Defense, Central Military Hospital/Internship # 62</b><br/>
Military Internist: Internal medicine, C-WMD, CBRNE, radiation injuires, contagious diseases/bio-containment 3 - 4 (1989 – 1991)<br />
Activities and Societies: Radiological isolation units. Infection control team.,</span></span></span></ul><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span></span><ul><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">
<ul> <li>Medical countermeasures for CWMD</li>
<li>MCM and radioprotective pharma for radiological injuries</li>
<li>Vaccine profiling, IL profiling, isolation ward shift work.</li>
<li>Disease control and prevention.</li>
<li>Advance military PPE testing and review.</li>
<li>Internal medicine patients care.</li></ul></span></span></span></ul><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">
<ul><b>Ministry of Defense S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy/Russian Federation</b><br />
Doctor in Medicine<br />
Fields Of Study: Military medicine and epidemiology, C-WMD, CBRN proliferation, military trauma, infection control (1982-1988)<br />
Activities and Societies: Military toxicology operational team. Radiological/Nuclear response team.<br />
Strategic Rocket Force (Faculty # 2), military research: weapons-grade organo-phosphates toxicology, effects of alpha, gamma/beta emitters/radioisotopes on GI motility. Spore-forming vs.non-spore-forming bio-elements during global warfare.</ul><br />
This talk was given on November 10,2020 in Loveland, CO. He has since been put on administrative leave and is under investigation. There is not one iota of anything improper in his talk that would cause any just or righteous employer to place him on administrative leave. </span></span></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-87781820073748223922017-05-11T17:36:00.002-05:002022-10-12T10:31:28.303-05:00The Science Behind Vaccines<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The problem with vaccine science which this article (linked in the title) conveniently overlooks is that there are no studies proving that vaccines are protective. While those who believe vaccines cause autism are accused of holding to an opinion contrary to science, the people making that accusation do the same thing when they believe that vaccines are protective. There are no studies done with a true placebo control group to prove that vaccines actually work – and that is an entirely separate question from whether vaccines can cause autism in some people. (Vaccine studies typically prove a vaccine is effective by measuring serum levels or by showing a better result than another vaccine. But that is not the same as proving a vaccine is protective.) The lack of data proving protection makes the traditional "risk vs. benefits" analysis, necessary to a well reasoned decision on whether or not to vaccinate, much more complex than this NT Times article would imply.<br /><br />
From an empirical perspective, one of the first questions that needs answered concerns the historical record of vaccine's protection. There is no question a number of diseases have been eradicated. The question is, “Are vaccines responsible for eradicating those diseases?” For example, even if one could prove global warming from temperature data, that doesn’t establish human activity as the cause of the temperature change. Correlation of two factors does not establish a cause and effect relationship between them. The same issue exists with respect to vaccination.<br /><br />
Leonard A. Sagan is a pro-vaccine, pro-evolution, government medicine physician who also happens to be an epidemiologist. One of his books is called <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Health-Nations-Sickness-Well-Being-Hardcover/dp/B011MCTE88">Health of Nations: The True Causes of Sickness and Well-Being.</a> It’s a fascinating book that proves a number of startling propositions drawn from his research of large scale studies regarding factors influencing health. For example: <br /><ul>“According to studies of the health of people belonging to an organization, ‘joiners’ show remarkably better health than ‘non-joiners.’”</ul><ul> Or, “the existence of a loving and supportive wife was sufficient to reduce the risk of angina pectoris by 50%.” </ul>Since he’s an evolutionist and anti- Christian, he didn’t make the connection that those are the traits of a Christian lifestyle. He presents data showing that infant mortality is inversely proportional to the concentration of doctors. One of his more surprising conclusions is that <ul> “The evidence suggests that improvements in the availability of medical care have played little role in reducing death rates from their historically high levels” and that “the benefits of improved sanitation have been oversold,” in “that improvements in health preceded rather than followed improvements in environmental sanitation.” </ul>He goes on to note a number of other researchers who have reached similar conclusions.<br /><br />
In his discussion on the role of immunization he discusses smallpox concluding that it is unproven that the smallpox vaccine was responsible for eradicating smallpox. He said, "<i><u>There is therefore reason</u> to speculate that a decline in smallpox deaths may have occurred in parallel with the introduction of vaccination – not necessarily because of it.”</i><br /><br />
Commenting more broadly, he says later, “There is still another reason for reserving judgment regarding the contribution of vaccination to the decline in mortality.” He goes on to show that decreases in these diseases did not reduce the death rate. And in many cases the diseases were under control before the introduction of the vaccine. For example, see his data below regarding Whooping cough and measles.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AYz9Otx80Uk/WRTgFYoYYtI/AAAAAAAAA9s/eyz7V9ye690ftKrjY5Y7kJphYCbddqUqQCLcB/s1600/UK%2BMeasles.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AYz9Otx80Uk/WRTgFYoYYtI/AAAAAAAAA9s/eyz7V9ye690ftKrjY5Y7kJphYCbddqUqQCLcB/s640/UK%2BMeasles.png" width="640" height="554" /></a></div>
Vaccines have never been proven to protect against getting infected. Twenty-five years ago I asked a doctor (a strong vaccine proponent) to show me data showing that vaccines prevent infection. His reply was that such studies would be “immoral” and therefore did not exist. That statement is backed up by “peer reviewed” articles.<br /><br />
Chickenpox vaccine:
</span><br />
<ul><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">“<i>No data exists regarding post-exposure efficacy of the current varicella vaccine.” “Vaccinated persons have a less severe out break than unvaccinated” MMWR July 12, 1996/45(RR11); p. 12</i></span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Pertussis vaccine:<br />
<ul>"<i>The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a direct correlation between antibody response and protection against pertussis disease.</i>” MMWR March 28, 1997/Vol.46/No. RR-7, pg. 4.</ul>
<br />
Smallpox vaccine:<br />
<ul>“<i>Neutralizing antibodies are reported to reflect levels of protection, although this has not been validated in the field.</i>” JAMA, June 9, 1999; Vol. 281, No. 22, p 2131</ul>
<br />
Before we can have a meaningful discussion about the risks vs benefits of vaccinations, we really need to understand what exactly the benefits actually are.
But we are not even to first base on that front as we really don’t know very much about immunology, something even government medicine acknowledges:<br />
<ul>“<i>One of the greatest mysteries yet to be unraveled in biology is the mechanism by which the fetus… is able to survive the immunologic defenses of the mother without being rejected. That a successful pregnancy so often is the outcome seems even more remarkable since it defies the basic tenants of the field of transplant immunology.</i>” JAMA (Nov 27, 1987), Vol 258, No 20, p2983.</ul>
<br />
Things don't seem to be much better today, at least according to Dr. Gary Fathman, MD:<br/>
<ul>“<i>. . . the immune system remains a black box,” says Garry Fathman, MD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and associate director of the Institute for Immunology, Transplantation and Infection . . . “It’s staggeringly complex, comprising at least 15 different interacting cell types that spew dozens of different molecules into the blood to communicate with one another and to do battle. Within each of those cells sit tens of thousands of genes whose activity can be altered by age, exercise, infection, vaccination status, diet, stress, you name it. . . . That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know what the vast majority of them do, or should be doing . . . ,</i> [B. Goldman, “The Bodyguard: Tapping the Immune System’s Secrets,” Stanford Medicine, summer 2011, as quoted in <a href="http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/an-honest-look-at-the-historical-evidence-that-vaccines-eliminated-diseases/">An Honest Look at the Historical Evidence that Vaccines Eliminated Diseases</a>]</ul>
Government education gave us public schools- the biggest institution of atheism and false dogma in America. Government science gave us global warming - the biggest scientific hoax of the 20th century. Why should we expect anything better from government medicine? <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/08/1690361/diabetes-rise-medical-costs/"> It has given us a nation of obesity, autism, and diabetes.</a><br /><br />
After all, would you trust an engineer to design a refrigerator if he couldn't explain the principles of science by which we can take heat from food at 35°F and put it into a room at 70°F?
If government medicine can’t even explain, immunologically, a basic pregnancy, why should we believe their unproven immunological claims about vaccines? Maybe they are true, but as the vaccine supporters are so fond of saying, show us the data that proves it.</span>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-67691638502268478302017-05-05T00:50:00.003-05:002022-11-05T10:46:45.936-05:00Some Thoughts on the Legitimacy of Conception Control [1]<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Peter Allison<br />
June 2011</span><br />
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%" />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
When God created man he commanded him to fill the earth and subdue it. In other words man was to labor and to procreate. He was to be fruitful and multiply and he was to exercise dominion over the Creation. God gave Adam a helpmeet (i.e. suitable helper[2]) to help him fulfill this task. Man must take dominion in the way God ordained – through the help of a wife. Since there was no sin, there was no toil or weariness in this labor. Neither was there any pain or sorrow in conception.<br /><br />
But the fall brought a curse that changed this happy state of affairs. God cursed the ground for man’s sake and told Adam that he would have to toil with ground that was cursed. The labor of tending the garden to get food would not be the pure, toil-free joy that it had been. It would now involve back-breaking labor wrestling with weeds and thorns. He would eat through the sweat of his brow. The woman did not escape this judgment. God told Eve that he would multiply her sorrow and conception.<br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>
How does Christ’s work of redemption affect this judgment on men?</b></span><br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Christ came to reverse the curse – as far as it is found. He promised to undo and remove the curse[3]. That promise is found even as he pronounced the curse when he told the serpent that the woman’s Seed would bruise the head of the serpent. While the removal of the spiritual aspects of the curse is preeminent in scripture, the physical ways in which the curse is mitigated are also taught in scripture and should not be ignored. Physical death is conquered in Christ’s resurrection.<br /><br />
There are a number of lesser benefits in this life as well. By his grace, as His Kingdom has progressed throughout the earth (i.e. Daniel 2:44-45; Rev 21-22:5) a number of labor saving devices that help to remove the toil from labor have been developed. I used tractors to plow fields as a young boy. It was much less wearisome than using a horse drawn plow and infinitely less wearisome than doing it by hand. Such tools are a blessing from God that serve to reverse the effect of the curse. As Christians, we welcome and use labor saving devices. We don't say that "God commanded us to labor; therefore any attempt to remove the toil of labor is wrong." We separate labor, which God has commanded, from the toil of labor, which is the result of the fall. We use labor saving devices so that the same labor produces much more fruit and is much less toilsome. It would be sin to use labor saving devices to avoid taking dominion or to enable us to spend more of the day in idleness. But it is most proper to use them to increase our ability to take dominion for the glory of God.<br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>
What about the judgment God pronounced on the woman?</b></span><br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
After the fall, God multiplied conception. Genesis 3:16a reads: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;” This is a significant point that few are discussing in dealing with conception control. God’s multiplication of conception wasn't a blessing, it was a judgment. Increased conception is the result of God's curse in the Garden of Eden. That's what the Bible says, not some planned barrenness zealot. But as the hymn Joy to the World says "Christ came to reverse the curse, Far as the curse is found." That includes removing the curse of multiplied conception for women. Thus conception control is actually a blessing from God in that it reduces conception. But in using conception control, we also have to remember that the command to be fruitful and multiply still stands. In other words, we must have a desire to obey God's command to be fruitful, a desire to have a quiver full, because children really are a blessing; but at the same time it is not wrong to limit conception when our quiver is full or to slow the pace of filling the quiver to lessen the sorrow associated with increased conception.<br /><br />
Even before the fall, Adam did not labor continuously. He labored and rested. That pattern continues after the fall. And, now that our labor has become wearisome, it isn't wrong to use labor saving devices that begin to roll back the curse in some small way. At the same time, we are commanded to labor. To use labor saving devices to enable us to spend more time lying in bed would be wrong. They are proper as long as they are not used to help us be lazy. The same caution applies to conception control. It is proper as long as it is not used to eliminate having children or escape the duty of married couples to render full obedience to being fruitful and multiplying, but only slow the pace or stop when our quiver is full.<br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>
Why Has Withdrawal Been Nearly Universally Considered Murder in Church History?</b></span><br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Now, what about all the spiritual giants of the past that have condemned conception control as tantamount to murder? Why was there such a universal prohibition of conception control among the reformers? For example, in his commentary on Gen 38:10, Calvin says “Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is ... to kill before he is born the hoped for offspring.” Theodore Laetsch says that in coitus interuptus, a human being is being murdered in its incipiency[4]. It is nearly impossible to find any support for contrary views on restricting conception.<br /><br />
A possible explanation is found in the medieval understanding of the physiology of conception. The prevalent theory of that time is sometimes called the "Garden Theory of Conception." They thought that during sexual intercourse the man implanted what today we would call a zygote in the woman[5]. In other words, they thought a living soul was transplanted from the man into the woman.<br /><br />
With this understanding it is easy to see why they thought conception control was murder. If a living person was being transplanted during intercourse, of course coitus interuptus would be murder. But this understanding is factually flawed. It is simply not true. What comes out of a man during intercourse is not a human life. It is only half of what is required. Conception happens inside the woman. If killing sperm was murder, then everyone that has intercourse of any kind would be committing murder because millions of sperm are killed with every union.<br /><br />
With this factual correction, it changes the decision one would arrive at. If I thought the Garden Theory of Conception was true, then I too would consider withdrawal murder. I think this answers the numerous Godly men of that age who said what they did.<br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>
Objections To Understanding Genesis 3:16 As Referring To An Increase In Conception</b></span><br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The phrase in Genesis 3:16 translated as “sorrow and conception” in the KJV is often understood as a hendiadys and translated “sorrow in conception” or “pain in childbearing.” One of the arguments commonly used against understanding “and conception” (והרנך) as referring to actual conception is that children were the fulfillment of the command to be fruitful and multiply, so therefore increased conception could not be part of the judgment. A variation of that argues that children were a blessing and therefore could not be part of the judgment for sin. This consideration seems to be the sole force moving people away from understanding this verse as referring to literal conception. I have included two samples of this line of thinking below, one from Keil & Delitzsch and the other from John Gill. Keil & Delitzsch, it should be noted, also do not buy into the hendiadys line of thinking.<br /><br />
Keil & Delitzsch write:<br />
<ul><i>The woman, who had broken the divine command for the sake of earthly enjoyment, was punished in consequence with the sorrows and pains of pregnancy and childbirth. "I will greatly multiply (הרבּה is the inf. abs. for הרבּה, which had become an adverb: vid., Ewald, 240c, as in Genesis 16:10 and Genesis 22:17) thy sorrow and thy pregnancy: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children." As the increase of conceptions, regarded as the fulfillment of the blessing to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28), could be no punishment, והרנך must be understood as in apposition to עצּבונך thy sorrow (i.e., the sorrows peculiar to a woman's life), and indeed (or more especially) thy pregnancy (i.e., the sorrows attendant upon that condition). The sentence is not rendered more lucid by the assumption of a hendiadys. "That the woman should bear children was the original will of God; but it was a punishment that henceforth she was to bear them in sorrow, i.e., with pains which threatened her own life as well as that of the child" (Delitzsch). The punishment consisted in an enfeebling of nature, in consequence of sin, which disturbed the normal relation between body and soul. (Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament).</i></ul><br />
John Gill writes:<br />
<ul><i>I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, or "thy sorrow of thy conception" (a), or rather "of thy pregnancy" (b); since not pain but pleasure is perceived in conception, and besides is a blessing; (John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)</i></ul><br />
But I don’t find either of these lines of thinking to be logically or Biblically consistent. In fact it seems just the opposite. Why wouldn’t God use as judgment what was given as a blessing? This sort of thing is seen many times in Scripture where God gives people what they want and then turns that very blessing into judgment (e.g. the quail). Labor existed before the fall and must therefore be considered as something good and wholesome. Yet this becomes a part of God’s judgment on Adam.<br /><br />
Rain for example is spoken of as both a blessing granted for obedience and withheld in times of disobedience and as a judgment in and of itself.<br /><br />
Rain in the proper season is presented as the fruit of obedience in Leviticus 26:4. "Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit."<br /><br />
<ul><li>That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your corn, and your wine, and your oil. (Deuteronomy 11:14)</li><br />
<li>The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. (Deuteronomy 28:12) </li></ul> <br />
The withholding of rain is promised as chastisement for disobedience.<br />
<ul><li>And then the LORD'S wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you. (Deuteronomy 11:17) </li><br />
<li>Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you, nor fields of offerings: for there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil. (2 Samuel 1:21) </li> <br />
<li> When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them. Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land, which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance. (1 Kings 8:35-36)</li><br />
<li> And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word. (1 Kings 17:1) </li><br />
<li> When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; yet if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou dost afflict them; Then hear thou from heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, when thou hast taught them the good way, wherein they should walk; and send rain upon thy land, which thou hast given unto thy people for an inheritance. (2 Chronicles 6:26-27) </li><br />
<li> If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; (2 Chronicles 7:13) </li><br />
<li> Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary. (Psalms 68:9)</li><br />
<li> Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.</li></ul><br />
But rain is also sent as a chastisement for disobedience by sending it out of season, such as during the harvest. (Jeremiah 3:3) <br />
<ul><li> Is it not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the LORD, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the LORD; and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day: and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel. (1 Samuel 12:17-18) </li></ul><br />
Rain was both used as a judgment in the Noahic flood and it is held forth as a covenantal blessing of obedience. So to argue that hêrôn can’t be literal conception because this is also a blessing, just doesn’t pass Biblical muster.<br /><br />
Another argument for the hendiadys position is based on the fact that “’Conception,’ …, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception”[6]. But I find that line of argumentation somewhat circular. It’s only a valid conclusion if one first accepts (or assumes) the hendiadys position where the two terms are referring to the same thing. If the phrase is understood as two distinct entities (i.e. sorrow and conception) that will both be increased, then the fact that there is no pain in conception presents no logical bind of any sort. The judgment is not in the pain of conception but in the increase of conception. Rain is a blessing when it comes in season and in the right quantity. Rain becomes a judgment when it comes out of season or in overwhelming quantities.<br /><br />
This is also seen as a synecdoche representing the entire process of childrearing from conception onward[7], something which I do agree with. But that is a logically distinct question from the translation question of whether sorrow and conception are the compound objects of multiply or not.<br /><br />
Dr. Krabbendam (Professor at Covenant College) is an example of someone who rejects the NASB translation on this verse. He writes:<br /><br />
<ul><i>After it has become evident that in the husband there is an irrepressible tendency to be irresponsible and in the wife there is an irrepressible tendency to dominate, the question may well arise why these tendencies are not contained but so often break out into the open.<br /><br />
Generally speaking, reference may be made to Paul's teaching on indwelling sin in Rom. 7:14-25. Paul states in this chapter that indwelling sin of the flesh is so strong that it always and by definition will prevent the regenerate heart, with its delight in the law of God, from acting obediently as long as the latter takes on indwelling sin in its own strength. More specifically, however, reference may be made to Gen. 3:16-19. God teaches in this passage that the lives of both wives and husbands are characterized by sorrow. To the woman God said, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception." This should not be changed, as the New American Standard Version does, in "multiply your sorrow in your conception." God wishes to say that sorrow will pervade all of the life of the woman. The force of this may not be broken. Symbolic of this all-pervasive sorrow will be the sorrow of childbirth. But this latter sorrow is not the central issue.<br /><br />
It serves to underscore the pervasiveness of the sorrow. This is indeed apparent in the life of the woman, in the rearing of children, in doing the menial tasks, etc. To the man God said, "In sorrow you shall eat of it (the ground) all the days of your life." Symbolic of this sorrow is the sorrow of the daily labor. But again, this latter sorrow is not the central issue. It serves to accentuate the all-pervasive sorrow in the life of the man that finds its culmination point in death.<br /><br />
Sorrow upon sorrow in the life of both wife and husband. Who shall deny this? It is in this context that the irrepressible tendencies of both husband and wife come out into the open.
The man wishes to escape his sorrow by his irresponsibility. He has had enough for the day. So he is going to read his paper. Never mind his wife, who seeks relief after having spent a long day with the children. The woman wishes to escape her sorrow by her domination. If she only had the final say, then her circumstances would change drastically. The man escapes his sorrow in his irresponsibility. At least he thinks he can. The woman escapes sorrow in her domination. At least she thinks she can.[8]</i></ul><br />
In a later, greatly expanded edition, he writes along a similar line:<br /><br />
<ul><i>Scripture indicates that the judicial effects of sin profoundly impact the man and the woman as well, and therefore, also the marriage relationship. These judicial effects consist of a pervasive sorrow that enters the fabric of the total existence of both the man and the woman.<br />
God begins by addressing the woman, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your childbirth" (Gen. 3:16). The meaning of this statement appears puzzling to many, including translators of the Bible. This is evident from the NASV and the NIV. Both change the coordinating conjunction "and" into the preposition "in," "I will . . . multiply your sorrow in your conception." This supposedly removes the seeming awkwardness of having "sorrow" and "childbirth" as a compound object of "multiply," and gives the sentence an unambiguous, straightforward and understandable meaning. <br />However, neither the original Hebrew, admitted by the NASV in the margin, nor any rule of grammar, syntax or semantics, when properly applied, supports such a change.
On the contrary, it totally obscures a much needed, vitally important, and incisive truth from view. God informs the woman bluntly and in no uncertain terms that sorrow will be part of the warp and woof of her life. It will be her ever-present companion that cannot be dismissed or ignored. The pain of childbirth, subsequently, functions as a persuasive symbol, and a constant reminder, that the sorrow will be pervasive, inescapable and at times seemingly unbearable. This interpretation appears preferable on three counts.<br /><br />
First, it cannot lead to the unacceptable conclusion that a woman without children thereby would escape the judicial effect of sin. <br /><br />Second, it does not allow for the implication that the judicial effect is merely a slap on the wrist in view of the relative infrequency of childbirth in the individual woman. <br /><br />Third, it paves the way for the much more natural explanation of the next sentence, “In sorrow you shall bring forth children,” as not merely a repetition of what has just been said, but as a further elaboration of the reality of the sorrow symbolized in childbirth. While after all each woman experiences the symbol of sorrow as a relatively infrequent occurrence, the substance of sorrow has a prevailing presence!<br /><br />
The judicial effect of sorrow, in short, is not a peripheral, intermittent, problem. It has a place in the very center of a woman's life. It colors the totality of her existence. And it persists throughout her life span.[9]</i></ul><br />
Another example of someone who does not accept the hendiadys position is John MacArther. I grant that just because experts believe something doesn’t make it right and neither am I arguing that I believe it because they do. However it does indicate that other teachers are thinking along similar lines.<br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>
Conclusion</b></span><br /><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
In saying that increased conception is part of the curse, I am not saying that having a large number of children is a curse. Rather it is the process of conceiving and raising children which constitutes the judgment. It is a process that is attended with travail as any nursing mother who has been up all night knows. The mother who has had 5 children in 5 years, or 5 children at once (quintuplets) knows how trying the first few years are. But it passes. God works even these trials out for our good. He blesses those women who are faithful in that toil. (2 Tim 2:15). Those same mothers reap a great reward for their labor.<br /><br />
The blessing of a godly man according to Psalm 128 is that not only would his children be as olive plants around his table, but he would see his children’s children. An increase in conception does not necessarily translate into seeing more of your children’s children; it could simply produce a greater number of untimely deaths. Such deaths are not a blessing, although God works through such tragedies to bring good for those who love him.<br /><br />
Clearly, children are a blessing; a large number of children is a great blessing. But just as clearly, children, be they many or few, can also be a great sorrow if they are not raised in the fear of the Lord. For example, children who kill their parents are ultimately not a blessing to those parents.[10]
There is nothing in this world that the Lord is not able to turn to dust in the hands of those who disobey. Likewise for those who repent, he can also redeem the years the locust have eaten and bring joy from the ashes.<br /><br />
Lastly, I do not speak often on this point. Not only do I highly respect the opposite view and believe the Lord is graciously bringing a period of increased fertility to replenish several generations of planned barrenness, but also we usually need to be encouraged to have more children, not fewer. Our tendency in this area is to laziness and avoidance of procreation. Just like people usually don’t need to be encouraged not to work too hard, neither do they need to be encouraged not to have so many children. Those families who are temporarily overwhelmed with young children, need to be encouraged, supported, and loved. I reserve the discussion presented here for those who specifically ask or to defend those who are being rebuked for sinning in not having as many children as they could possibly have.</span><br />
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%" />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>
Footnotes</b></span><br /><br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> It is not my intention to
deal here with the numerous theological fallacies present in many “full quiver”
arguments. For example, one of the frequent claims is that God is Sovereign and
has control of the womb, therefore it is wrong for us to limit conception
because that would impinge, limit, or challenge God’s sovereignty. Obviously,
if our actions could impinge or limit God’s actions, then he would not be
sovereign, we would be the sovereign. That God is sovereign means that nothing
we do can alter God’s decree one iota. For a fuller discussion of the
sovereignty of God in the actions of men, see the article, <i><a href="http://crowncovenantchurch.org/cmsFiles/documents/The%20Free%20Offer%20Defended.pdf">The Free Offer Defended</a></i>.
Our failure to obey does absolutely nothing to abrogate God’s sovereignty. Our
obligation is to obey God’s commands. The question we should be asking is,
“What has God commanded us to do or forbidden us from doing?” See Dr. Phil
Kayser’s unpublished <i>Discussion Notes
Relative to the Debate on Birth Control</i> for a more detailed treatment of
the “full quiver” arguments. [May 2017] This paper was recently published as<i> Conception Control: Avoiding Antinomianism and Legalism.</i> This work comprehensively covers every major topic regarding conception control, graciously brings scriptural clarity to a lot of fuzzy areas, and is an excellent scientific resource for the thorny medical ethics around conception. </div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn2">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Some change this to <i>helpmate</i>. But that is not quite what
this word means. It means a helper that is <i>meet</i>
in the sense of suitable for him. John the Baptist told the Pharisees to bring
forth fruits meet for repentance, meaning fruits that were fit or suited for
repentance. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn3">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> The new heavens and the
new earth are described in Revelation 22:3 as having no more curse. “And there
shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it;
and his servants shall serve him:” <o:p></o:p></div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn4">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> <i>Arguments Against Birth Control</i>, Quoted in Provan, Charles D., <i>The Bible and Birth Control</i>, (Zimmer
Books, 1989)<o:p></o:p></div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn5">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> See for example <i>The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas</i>,
Second and Revised Edition, 1920. Literally translated by Fathers of the
English Dominican Province. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
“<i>This <u>active
force which is in the semen, and which is derived from the soul of the
generator</u>, is, as it were, a certain movement of this soul itself: nor is
it the soul or a part of the soul, save virtually; thus the form of a bed is
not in the saw or the axe, but a certain movement towards that form.
Consequently there is no need for this active force to have an actual organ;
but it is based on the <u>(vital) spirit in the semen</u> which is frothy, as
is attested by its whiteness. In which spirit, moreover, there is a certain
heat derived from the power of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of which the
inferior bodies also act towards the production of the species as stated above
(115, 3, ad 2). And since in this (vital) spirit the power of the soul is
concurrent with the power of a heavenly body, it has been said that "man
and the sun generate man." Moreover, elemental heat is employed
instrumentally by the soul's power, as also by the nutritive power, as stated
(De Anima ii, 4).”</i> Question 118, Art 1, Reply to Objection 3. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<i>“In perfect
animals, generated by coition, the <u>active force is in the semen of the male</u>,
as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3); but the foetal matter is
provided by the female. In this matter, the vegetative soul exists from the
very beginning, not as to the second act, but as to the first act, as the
sensitive soul is in one who sleeps. But as soon as it begins to attract
nourishment, then it already operates in act. <u>This matter therefore is
transmuted by the power which is in the semen of the male</u>, until it is
actually informed by the sensitive soul; not as though the force itself which
was in the semen becomes the sensitive soul; for thus, indeed, the generator
and generated would be identical; moreover, this would be more like nourishment
and growth than generation, as the Philosopher says. And after the sensitive
soul, by the power of the active principle in the semen, has been produced in
one of the principal parts of the thing generated, then it is that the
sensitive soul of the offspring begins to work towards the perfection of its
own body, by nourishment and growth. As to <u>the active power which was in the
semen, it ceases to exist, when the semen is dissolved and the (vital) spirit
thereof vanishes</u>. Nor is there anything unreasonable in this, because this
force is not the principal but the instrumental agent; and the movement of an
instrument ceases when once the effect has been produced.</i> Question 118, Art
1, Reply to Objection 4.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn6">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> New English Translation,
Note 47 on Genesis 3:16. From http://bible.org/netbible/.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn7">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn8">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> <i>A Biblical Pattern of Preparation for Marriage</i>, Dr. Henry
Krabbendam, 1974.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn9">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Krabbendam, 2003.
Unpublished text.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div><br />
<div id="ftn10">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/PeterAllison/Documents/Papers%20&amp;%20Presentations/Published/Some%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Legitimacy%20of%20Conception%20Control.docx#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Children murdering their
parents is a great tragedy that happens with some regularity. Kathleen M.
Heide in <i>Understanding Parricide: When Sons and Daughters Kill Parents Paperback</i>
claims 2% of murders in the US are patricide or matricide.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</span>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-36784087288456358242016-02-24T23:06:00.003-06:002022-10-12T11:05:35.524-05:00Some Thoughts On Senator Cruz<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Senator Ted Cruz is undeniably a charismatic and gifted campaigner. But who's side is he really on? To whom is he married? What has he done politically and for whom has be worked?</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5l6alOlmh80/Vs6RhX3ULiI/AAAAAAAAA8I/6MFwcVag9ss/s1600/Cruz%2BAnnouncing.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5l6alOlmh80/Vs6RhX3ULiI/AAAAAAAAA8I/6MFwcVag9ss/s320/Cruz%2BAnnouncing.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Ted worked on the Bush 2000 campaign, was a key legal adviser for Bush in the Florida recount, recruiting John Roberts (later appointed Chief Justice) to the legal team, and then received a spoils role in his White House. While this indicates a close connection to the "establishment", it was his Senate record that confirmed to me he is truly an agent for the globalist agenda. <br /><br />
Voting records are very slippery things. Bills are created and tagged as pro-life or pro-gun so that members can vote the right way to get high marks on a particular scorecard. But often such bills have no meaningful effect on anything or can even have a detrimental effect. The meaningful votes are often the procedural votes that set up the highly publicized and reported votes or amendment votes that gut good bills. Unless one digs deeply into the congressional record, these finer points can go unnoticed. <br /><br />
For example, in Texas the bill that made it legal to murder unborn babies (SB319) was highly touted as a "pro-life" bill, so much so that some pro-life organizations gave a vote in favor of making it legal to murder unborn babies double credit on their scorecards.
The law was passed by a supposedly pro-life, republican controlled legislature and signed by a pro-life Republican governor. Unless you actually read the bill, you would think all those dutiful pro-life members were doing the duty they were elected to do and fighting for life. Sadly it was just the opposite. Prior to the bill it was illegal to murder unborn babies in Texas. After the bill, Sec 19.006 was added to the murder statute to allow mothers and doctors to murder unborn individuals. <br /><br />
Cruz's record in the Senate is composed of similar tactics. Along with 30 other senators, he co-sponsored Senator Rand Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, dubbed <a href="http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/GRA15012.pdf" target="_blank">the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2015</a>. Ron Paul had been introducing similar legislation into the house for a number of years. It recently started passing. However, it wasn’t until Rand got to the Senate and the Republicans took back control of the Senate that it stood a chance of passing there as well.
Cruz said all the right things about auditing the Fed. For example, at a recent debate he said, “I’ve got deep concerns about the Federal Reserve. The first thing that I think we need to do is audit the Fed and I am an original co-sponsor of Congressman Ron Paul’s (R-TX), “Audit the Fed” legislation.” (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/video/multimedia/100000004005901/cruz-has-deep-concerns-about-fed-calls-for-audit.html" target="_blank">video here</a>.)<br /><br />
Not surprisingly, the Democrats blocked the bill and thus a 60% majority vote was needed to advance the legislation. But on the day of the vote, Cruz was absent. Yes, it is true he was busy campaigning. But Rubio (another co-sponsor) voted, and Rand voted. Both of those men were also campaigning for president but were still able to get back for this very important vote. Senator Cruz was conveniently absent for the most important vote he could make to dismantle the new world order and make good on his anti-establishment rhetoric. <br /><br />
He played the same sort of game with the secret TPP free trade bill. He was for it until a few days before the scheduled vote when it had enough votes to pass comfortably, then he switched and was against it. That way he could say he voted against it, while he had been promoting it all along. This is the way the game is played. Unless one is paying close attention, it is easy to miss these troubling details. People typically allow a politician a couple of deviations from their “promised” position without removing their support. But when those few votes turn out to be key legislative cornerstones for the new world order, one has to wonder.<br /><br />
Now what about Heidi Cruz? Her resume includes the following:</span><br />
<ul><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li>Member, Council on Foreign Relations – if you’re not familiar with this organization, a good place to start is Shadows of Power by James Pearloff.</li>
<li>Investment banker for J.P. Morgan in New York City. (JP Morgan was represented at Jeckyll Island.)</li>
<li>2000 - Worked on the George W. Bush presidential campaign. </li>
<li>2001 - Served in the Bush administration under Condoleezza Rice as Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.</li>
<li>2004 – Member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America whose main output was a report titled, Building a North American Community. (see for more information <a href="http://blog.dollarnoncents.com/2011/08/whats-wrong-with-trans-texas-corridor.html" target="_blank">http://blog.dollarnoncents.com/2011/08/whats-wrong-with-trans-texas-corridor.html</a>)</li>
<li>On leave of absence as the managing partner of Goldman, Sachs & Co. Houston office for Ted’s campaign. Goldman Sachs is a primary dealer with the US Fed– one of only about 20 dealers.</li>
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
She’s about as tied to the establishment as one could possibly be.<br /><br />So what do we make of these facts? Who is working for the new world order (i.e. one world government and dissolution of US) and who's not is much like asking who's a Christian and who's not. No Christian acts as a Christian should in every circumstance. But just because no Christian is without sin doesn't make it impossible to discern who is for the Lord and who is not. All those not for Christ are against him. Conversely, there are many people against Christ who at times can be very gracious and giving people.<br /><br />
In an analogous way, many agents for the new world order can say and do good things at times. Unlike the Christian faith, the god of the new world order faith is neither sovereign nor omnipotent and there are no promises or assurance regarding their children. Converts are wooed gradually through the influence of mentors and the environment. Antony Sutton, the Hoover Institute scholar, has written a very helpful book using numerous historical examples illustrating this process of association and influence in recruiting the next generation (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-Establishment-Introduction-Order/dp/0972020748" target="_blank">America's Secret Establishment</a>, see "Chain of Influence" starting on p41). Servando Gonzalez, in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Warfare-New-World-Order/dp/0932367232" target="_blank">Psychological Warfare and the New World Order</a>, analyzes open sources using standard intelligence methods to name the handlers for every US president since WW1. This influence is indirect. No President has always done what their handlers wanted them to do in every situation. But that doesn't negate the very real impact, nor the fact that every American presidency (Reagan included) has basically followed the same agenda. This new world order influence is the key that best explains the course of American history over the past 100 years. The conservative / liberal paradigm utterly fails to account for the overall trajectory of so called "conservative" and "liberal" administrations which have typically contradicted the campaign rhetoric. The ideological liberals were as upset with Obama as the constitutionalists were with Bush.<br /><br />
Not everyone that works for a global, CFR connected company like JP Morgan is a supporter of the new world order. However employment at these places provides exposure to the right people and can serve as a point of entrance. It's from there that she got connected with Secretary Rice (CFR member) and served in the Bush white house. I saw this happen from the inside while a student at the US Naval Academy. The top 10-15 students in the class were invited to join an elite study group that met Saturday morning under the tutelage of a senior professor to prepare them for a Rhodes Scholarship. This is where they were exposed to these ideas. Over the course of their sophomore and junior year their thinking was influenced. While some were more influenced than others, none of the students I personally knew was really aware of the process (including myself at the time). Those that best articulated the new world order philosophy were chosen as Rhodes Scholars. Later there are opportunities for internships at the White House, Langley, or the Pratt house where thinking is influenced further.<br /><br />
I consider the most significant data points in Heidi Cruz's biography to be her membership on the CFR task force on the Future of North America, her senior leadership position in Goldman Sachs, and her close connection to CFR leaders in the White House. A true constitutionalist will never be invited onto a CFR task force, even as a dissenting voice. If one ever did, they, like Admiral Chester Ward, would resign in protest. Likewise, no one will ever become a senior vice president (managing director) in a CFR connected multi-national company without being ideologically supportive of the new world order. The scrutiny of the vetting process that is done for the top positions in those companies far exceeds anything I experienced for TS SBI clearances in the DOD. The White House service in 3 departments under a very senior CFR member was the ticket that got her invited to the task force. If Secretary Rice had not deemed her suitably favorable to the new world order objectives, she would have never received the invitation to serve on the task force.<br /><br />
Don't think the CFR tells the state department what to do? <a href="http://blog.dollarnoncents.com/2010/07/straight-from-horses-mouth.html" target="_blank">This video has the words from the horse's mouth.</a><br /><br />
In the words of former CFR member, Admiral Ward:<br />
“Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.” (Admiral Chester Ward, Kissinger on the Couch, p. 151. 1975)<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/Ted_Cruz_Video.mp4" target="_blank">This video ties it all together.</a><br /><br />
</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-65637417265530462792015-09-26T02:29:00.003-05:002022-10-12T11:06:51.591-05:00Four Reasons Kim Davis is Not Wrong<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14px;"><br />
If I had a penny every time I heard a Christian say about Kim Davis' situation something to the effect of:<br />
<blockquote><i>"When we make laws, we will expect them to be followed. Supporting those who break the law is setting up a spiral in which breaking the law becomes accepted. Then the law has no force and is not good for anything. We can make all the laws we want if half the people refuse to follow them at any given time and it will not do any good. Laws become meaningless."</i></blockquote>
This is half correct and all wrong at the same time.<br />
The only standard of right and wrong is the scripture. Romans 13:1 is quite clear that the only authority which civil magistrates (e.g. county clerks, senators, governors, judges, and presidents) have is what God has given them. Where God has not given them authority, they have no authority. When they speak without authority to do so, no one is obliged to hear or obey them. Romans 13 gives no exceptions.<br />
<blockquote><i>(John 19:9-11 - And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.</i></blockquote>
No Kim Davis cannot make her own law. But neither can the governor or the AG can make law. Only the legislature can enact laws. Until the legislature changes the law, she is duty bound to obey the law. SCOTUS can not make federal law and they most definitely cannot make state law. They can only apply the law to cases that properly come before them. Their rulings, such as their Obergafell decision, only apply to the specific parties in a case. Even if they rule that a person is innocent of breaking the law because the body making the law did not have constitutional authority to make that particular law, that doesn't change the law.<br />
So what about the arguments in the linked article?<br />
<ul><b>LOGIC</b>–Imagine you worked at a restaurant, and you believed that God thought drinking alcohol was a sin.</ul>
This is not analogous. She is not an employee working for a business or boss. She is an elected official responsible to carry out the statutory duties of her office in accordance with the law. She took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of Kentucky, and all the laws created in accordance with it. Those laws forbid her from issuing marriage licenses to same gender couples.
Secondly, even if the KY constitution is changed and the legislature changes the law to require clerks to grant marriage licenses to people of the same sex, ALL clerks are still duty bound to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). No government can impose a duty which God has forbidden. No government can impose a duty to obey a law which they have no authority to make. While a godly civil servant may resign when ordered to break the law of God, they are not obligated to do so. <br /> Daniel is an example of a civil magistrate who refused to obey the law of the land and refused to resign his office as second in command next to the king. He also refused to privatize his obedience of God and disobedience of the king's decree, praying by an open window in full view of people. God honored Daniel for his disobedience of the pagan king's civil command and his example of obedience to God has been honored by the Christian church ever since. Kim Davis' case in terms of facts and law is even stronger than Daniel's situation. Daniel disobeyed the clear law of the land - a law which the King had no authority to make and which imposed no moral obligation of obedience on Daniel. Kim Davis has broken no laws - she has only defied the order of a judge commanding her to break state law. Since she was not a party to any SCOTUS case, she is therefore not legally bound to comply with the SCOTUS opinion.<br />
<ul><b>HYPOCRISY</b>–Refusing to issue a marriage license to a couple because you believe the Bible condemns their union is a difficult position for a County Clerk to take without turning into a giant hypocrite. The Bible actually says nothing whatsoever about same-sex marriage. It does say quite a bit about the issue of divorce.</ul>
Actually the Bible has a lot to say about marriage. God made mankind male and female and instituted marriage with one man and one woman. He commands married people to engage in regular sexual intercourse ( 1 Cor 7) but he condemns men laying with men and women laying with women. The Bible does allow some divorced people to remarry so it is not wrong for her to issue marriage licenses to divorced people.<br />
<ul><b>CONFUSION</b>–Kim Davis and her supporters are arguing that forcing her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples amounts to “Religious Persecution.”</ul>
I disagree somewhat with Kim Davis' position here, but forcing her to break God's law and Kentucky state law and Constitution is certainly persecution. People that attempt to force others to break the law are called tyrants and their actions, tyranny. <br />
<ul><b>INTEGRITY</b>–Staying on in a position for which you are refusing to perform the duties you were hired to perform–all while continuing to take a salary–is far from a “Christian” thing to do.</ul>
This is generally true, but doesn't apply to Kim Davis. She is doing the duties she took an oath to perform according to the laws she swore to uphold. It is the federal judge ordering her to do something unlawful who has the integrity problem. Remember Daniel's example we alluded to earlier?<br />
I appreciate Kim Davis' stand but regret the grandstanding of some people associating themselves with her and leveraging her plight to promote themselves.
</span><br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-78004727629258473652015-08-13T17:25:00.006-05:002022-11-30T16:01:36.688-06:00The Law of God in the Life of a Christian<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In most ethical debates among Christians, the question causing debate is often not what the law <i>means</i> or how it should be applied, but rather what <i><b>is</b></i> the law that should be applied. Even among Christians, who all recognize Jesus Christ as the King of Kings, there is significant disagreement about which of the many words that he has spoken are applicable in any given situation and which are not. One doesn’t have to listen to this debate very long before hearing the assertions like, “Old Testament laws only applied to Israelites”, “The 10 Commandments were only for Israel”, or “We are not under law, but under grace.” In fact, the last statement is itself a part of the law of God. (“…for you are not under law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14b) What does it mean? To answer that question, let’s begin by defining the terms, particularly the terms "under" and "law". <br /><br />In the Bible, Law is used in several different ways. It can refer to:<br />
</span>
<ol>
<h4>
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A doctrine, system, or principle</span></li>
</h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Romans 3:27 - Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. <br /><br />
Romans 8:2 - For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.<br /><br />
Romans 7:23 - But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
<h4>
<li>The commands and ceremonies associated with the OT Temple and Tabernacle Worship.</li>
</h4>
Hebrews 8:4 - For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:, or<br /><br />
Hebrews 10:1 - For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.<br /><br />
Hebrews 10:8 - Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin you would not, neither had pleasure therein; which are offered according to the law;<br /><br />
Ephesians 2:15 - Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
<h4>
<li>The Moral Law (or that which is summarized in the 10 commandments)</li>
</h4>
Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?<br /><br />
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
<h4>
<li>The Pentateuch</li>
</h4>
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.<br /><br />
John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael, and said unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
<h4>
<li>The Scriptures as a whole</li>
</h4>
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6 referring to the Psalms as the “law.”<br /><br />
Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:<br /><br />
Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith. These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.<br /><br />
Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.</span></ol><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">There are many passages in the NT where law is used to explicitly refer to OT commandments and there are places where law is used without explicit reference to OT commandments. But nowhere does the NT ever limit “law” to just NT commands.
The word under is fairly straightforward meaning “obligated to obey” or in the case of a principle, that it is applicable to our situation. So with these definitions, I think most would agree that scripture teaches:
</span><br />
<ol><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The law of faith and the law of the Spirit of life are doctrines that are applicable to us. But we are not under the law as a means of justification. We can’t be saved by keeping the law. Grace is the principle undergirding our salvation. It is the means by which we are saved from the wrath of God (Ephesians 2:9). Neither are we under the curse of the law. Christ has borne the curse of the law, satisfying the wrath of God and paying the penalty for our breaking of God’s law.</span></li>
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree: Galatians 3:13.<br /><br />
<li>Neither are we under the law in the second sense of its use. Christ has offered of himself a sacrifice that is far superior to the blood of the bulls and goats. In fact any attempt to obey these laws using animal sacrifices is to deny Christ’s great work on the cross.</li><br />
</span></ol>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">But what about the law as defined in senses 3 through 5?</span>
<br />
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><u>The NT View of Transgressions of God’s Law</u></span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
First, the Bible defines sin as a transgression of God’s law. <br />
</span>
<ul><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li>Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4</li>
<br />
<li>What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Romans 7:7</li>
</span></ul><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Note that in these passages law is being used in sense 3, 4, or 5. <br /><br />
Secondly, the Bible says that we still sin. <br />
</span>
<ul><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li>If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)</li>
<br />
<li>Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. (James 5:16a)</li>
<br />
<li>Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)</li>
</span></ul><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
If sin is a transgression of the law and we still sin, even after conversion, then we must still have a duty to obey the law of God. If there was no obligation for us to obey the law of God, then it would be impossible for us to sin. Sin is only possible where there is a law. “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” (Romans 5:13)<br /><br />
Paul tells us that sin is not to have dominion over us and that we are not to use our members for sinful purposes. If we are not to use our members for sin then we are not to use our members to transgress the law of God. That is the same as saying that we have a moral duty to obey the law of God.<br />
</span>
<ul><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li>Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. Romans 6:12-13</li><br />
</span></ul><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
John is quite explicit that we if we abide in Christ we are not to sin any more. <br />
<ul>
<li>You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 1 John 3:5-6</li><br />
</ul> <br />
If we are not to sin any more, that means we are not to transgress the law of God anymore. If we are not to transgress the law of God, then we are under obligation to obey the law of God. This is consistent with what Jesus said in Matthew 5 about not coming to abolish the law.<br /><br />
Jesus taught that the Old Testament law was still something we should obey and called those who broke even the least commandment, least in the kingdom of heaven.<br />
<ul>
<li>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19</li><br />
<li>And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:17</li></ul><br />
Jesus also cited OT applications of the moral law as obligatory. For instance, when Jesus was tempted by Satan to cast himself off the temple, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:16 (Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God,) as the reason it would be wrong for him to cast himself off the temple. In Mark 10:19 he added the OT command "Do not defraud" to a partial recitation of the 10 commandments. <br /><br />
This understanding of our relationship to the law is implicitly assumed or explicitly stated many places in scripture. Jesus said the golden rule is based upon the OT law (Deuteronomy 6:5).<br />
<ul>
<li>Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, you shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and with all thy soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37-40</li><br />
<li>Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12</li></ul><br />
Jesus appealed to the OT law regarding the necessity of a plurality of witnesses to establish facts in order to show that his testimony about himself was true. Jesus claimed his testimony was true because it was established by two witnesses – the Father and the Son – exactly as required in the law.<br />
<ul>
<li>And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bears witness of myself, and the Father that sent me bears witness of me. John 8:16-18</li></ul><br />
Jesus recognized the Pharisee’s tithing the increase of their spices was proper and good. But he also rebuked them for not obeying the weightier matters of the law. If the Pharisees were rebuked for forgetting the weightier matters of the law – judgment, mercy, and faith, how much more are we, who have the greater light of the NT, responsible to obey the weightier matters of the law of God?<br />
<ul>
<li>Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Matthew 23:23</li></ul><br />
Paul acknowledged that the law in Exodus 22:28 was something he should obey.<br />
<ul>
<li>Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for you sit to judge me after the law, and command me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Do you revile God's high priest? Then said Paul, I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. Acts 23:3-5</li></ul><br />
Consistent with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5, Paul applies obligations in the OT law to NT situations. <br />
<ul>
<li>Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. For the scripture says, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn. And, the laborer is worthy of his reward. (1Timothy 5:17-18)</li><br /><br />
<li>For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or says he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plows should plow in hope; and that he that threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 1 Corinthians 9:9-10</li></ul><br />
Paul appeals to Deuteronomy 25:4 (Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn.) as the basis for paying elders in the NT church. It should also be remembered that Paul goes so far as to say that he proclaimed nothing except what was written in Moses and the prophets. Far from being abolished, the law of God (i.e OT scripture) is the foundation on which the NT is built. <br />
<ul>
<li>Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. (Acts 26:22)</li></ul><br />
Paul also said that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) He doesn’t say, “NT scripture is profitable.” If we are going to be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, then we must pay attention to all scripture. We have to be instructed in both the OT and NT law.
</span><br />
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><u>The Significance of Obeying God’s Law</u></span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Jesus taught that keeping the law would bring eternal life, if anyone could do it. The problem, as Paul makes clear in Romans 2 is that absolutely no one, either Jew or Gentile, can keep the law.
<ul>
<li>And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read it?’ And he answering said, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.’ And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Luke 10:25-28</li></ul><br />
Paul repeats same principle in Romans – those who (actually and in fact) keep the law are justified. <br />
<ul>
<li>For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Romans 2:11-13</li></ul><br />
Paul goes on to leave no doubt that even though perfect obedience of the law of God would result in eternal life, no one can be saved that way because no one is able to keep the law. No one can even come close.
<ul>
<li>As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understand, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. … Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight… (Romans 3:10-18, 20a)</li></ul>
</span>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<u>The Spiritual Nature and Inward Inscription of God’s Law</u></span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
But as Paul makes clear a little later, the fact that we are justified by grace does not make void the law of God.<br />
<ul>
<li>Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. … Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:28, 31</li></ul><br />
Far from being made void, the law is not only established, but it is good and it is spiritual.<br />
<ul>
<li>Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. … For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Romans 7:12, 14, 16</li><br />
<li>I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: Romans 7:21-22</li></ul><br />
The NT teaches that God writes the law on our heart. Far from teaching that we are no longer obliged to obey the law of God, Hebrews says that God puts his law into our minds.<br />
<ul>
<li>For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Hebrews 8:10</li></ul>
The Apostle John describes Christians as those who keep the commandments of God. <br />
<ul>
<li>Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. Revelation 14:12</li><br />
<li>Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and h
d to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea. Revelation 12:17</li></ul>
</span>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<u>Love Defined by Obedience to God’s Law</u></span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The NT everywhere emphatically affirms the OT. But the obligation for NT Christians to follow the law of God can be shown from a completely different approach. We are commanded in numerous places to love one another. What does it mean to love? Jesus said that to love him means that we keep his commandments. (If you love me, you will keep my commandments. John 14:15) Paul says the same thing in Romans: “love is fulfilling the law.”
<ul>
<li>Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loves another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)</li></ul><br />
Note that the law to which he refers is the portion of the ten commandments dealing with our relationship to our neighbors. The Apostle John says the same thing.<br />
<ul>
<li>By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 1 John 5:2-3</li><br />
<li>And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. 2 John 1:6</li></ul><br />
John also said that keeping the commandments of Christ was necessary to abiding in his love. His commandment is that we love one another. As shown earlier, to love our neighbor means that we obey the law of God with respect to our neighbor – we promote his life, property, chastity, and reputation.<br />
<ul>
<li>If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. John 15:10</li></ul><br />
This command to love is not a new command. It is an old command that goes all the way back to creation when God created the heavens and the earth. From the beginning God’s saints have been obligated to love him and keep his commandments. Our love for one another and the fact that we are children of God are both evidenced by our obedience of God’s law.<br />
<ul>
<li>And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 1 John 2:3-7</li></ul><br />
Since love is defined as obedience to the law of God, we do not love unless we are obeying God’s law as revealed in the Old and New Testament. Since we are commanded to love, we are therefore obligated to keep the law of God. Thus we are under the law, not as a way of salvation, but as a pattern for our sanctification.
</span><br />
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<u>The New Testament Requires Obedience to Old Testament Law</u></span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The NT seamlessly applies the law of God to Christians in the NT. From Christ’s requiring the rich young man to keep God’s commandments and equating them with the commandments given at Sinai to Paul commanding the Ephesians to obey the fifth of the ten commandments given at Mt. Sinai, calling it the first commandment with a promise , to John saying that his command to love one another was not a new command but an old one, the NT commands obedience to the law of God given in the OT. <br /><br />
The burden is on those who deny the applicability of the ten commandments or any other portion of the law of God to show from scripture that those laws have been abrogated for the NT Christian. This is not accomplished by merely pointing to the fact that we no longer kill Passover lambs and put their blood on our doors because Scripture teaches that Christ is our Passover Lamb and that he has already been sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5:7) and that his sacrifice is not to be repeated (Hebrews 7:27, 9:26). Nevertheless, we are to still keep the passover, albeit in a very different manner. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (I Corinthians 5:7b-8) If one wants to consider the passover abrogated, I won’t disagree as long as two points are acknowledged:<br /><br />
1. That the OT Passover (or OT other ceremonies) pointed forward to Christ who is the anti-type of the OT Passover (or other OT ceremony) and that what was celebrated in the OT ceremony is still celebrated in Christ.<br /><br />
2. That the abrogation of specific passover laws cannot be generalized to all other laws without a specific scriptural warrant for doing so. <br /><br />
Showing that the OT laws have been abrogated is also not accomplished by merely pointing to laws requiring a fence around one’s roof or forbidding the muzzling of a donkey threshing grain and noting that we no longer do these things. Twice Paul uses the law against muzzling donkeys to argue that NT pastors should be paid. In making that argument Paul also teaches us that the point of the law was more about teaching us that a laborer is worthy of wages than it was about the care and feeding of donkeys. Paul’s example teaches us that even if the specific context of the law no longer directly applies to us, the principle being taught in the law still very much applies to us. If we were to find ourselves in the exact same situation today, then the same action specified in the OT law would be the obligatory for us.</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-58068134115299699472014-07-04T00:07:00.000-05:002014-07-04T00:07:04.398-05:00The Free Offer Defended<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The “free offer” of the gospel has been the subject of intense debate for many years. On one hand some have argued that if God has foreordained some men to eternal damnation from before the foundation of the world, then how could God sincerely offer his saving mercy to them? Others argue that if he truly desired to gather the rebellious children of Israel under his wing as a hen gathers her chicks, but the Scribes and Pharisees were not willing , isn’t God expressing a desire of some sort to save those who are not elect? All too often one side latches on to the passages that affirm their favored view and then with the club of logic, beat all other passages into conformity to that doctrine. <br /><br /><a href="http://dollarnoncents.com/media/TheSovereigtyofGodintheFreeOfferoftheGospel.pdf">Read More</a> </span>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-35667234827220391312014-04-25T01:24:00.008-05:002024-02-05T10:31:14.327-06:00Why Not A Constitutional Convention?<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I received an email today from a local representative of the Convention of States asking for support for an Article V Constitutional Convention, similar to the one in 1787 that gave us the constitution we now have. After acknowledging our agreement on many things and thanking her for reaching out to us, I told her that her email only reinforced my already firm persuasion that another Constitutional Convention posed a great danger to our country.<br /><br />
An article V convention will have power to revise the constitution. Whether they use that power lawfully or unlawfully, they will change the constitution. That is the problem. Changing the constitution does nothing to restore lawful government. Consider the two possible extreme outcomes: 1. Only "good" changes are made and the constitution is made a better document, or 2) Only bad changes are made and constitution is gutted. If option 1 happens and we get more restrictive statements about what government can and can't do, how will that restore lawful government? If good statements could restrain an out of control government, then the good statements already in the constitution would be doing so. The right to keep and bear arms would not be egregiously violated every time one steps on federal property or buildings. Mass collection of private data would not occur because that violates the 4th amendment. Civil forfeiture would not occur because that violates the 5th amendment. The FDA's egregious predawn raids on family farms would not exist because they have no constitutional authority to regulate what farmers grow or how they sell their milk. The problem is the government is violating the good statements in the constitution. More good statements on a piece of paper won't stop them. On the other hand, the convention poses a huge risk to the constitution if good statements are removed or edited into meaninglessness. Why do something that has huge risk and no benefit?<br /><br />
The one constitutional convention in our history is not a promising precedent. I don’t consider it to have been good or successful for the cause of liberty. It posed a grave threat that was only partially neutralized by a minority of astute delegates who doggedly fought to preserve a federal government and knew enough zoology to identify a rat when they chanced to encounter one.<br />
<br />
Why do I say the first convention was dangerous to liberty?
</span>
<br />
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The very thing that advocates say could not happen (i.e. a run-away convention) is what actually happened at the first convention. </span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
The constituting resolution was:<br /><br /><i>
“Resolved, That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."</i><br /><br />
The stated and agreed purpose was to revise the Articles of Confederation. However from the opening volley, it became apparent that the real intention of some was to eradicate a federal government and replace it with a centralized, national government like the European states had.<br /><br />
In rebuting the charge that the convention was illegal, Mr. Farris's <a href="http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v21n4/V21N401.asp">article </a>
completely misses the point. Whether the convention was legal or not is a straw man argument. The problem is not that the convention acted illegally, the problem is that the convention, <u>legally or illegally</u>, altered the very principle on which our federal government was based.<br /><br />
Consider the following evidence:
<br /><br />
In his opening remarks, Governor Randolf proposed 15 resolutions to the delegates as principles on which to base the new government. According to Mr. Yates, “He candidly confessed that they were not intended for a federal government—he meant a strong, consolidated union, in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated.” (Chief Justice Yate’s minutes, from Tuesday May 29, 1787).<br /><br />
Gouverneur Morris then proposed 3 resolutions:</span><br />
<ol><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li><i>Resolved, That a union of the states, merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation, namely, common defense, security of liberty, and general welfare.</i></li>
<li>Resolved, That no treaty or treaties among any of the states, as sovereign, will accomplish or secure their common defense, liberty, or welfare.</li>
<li>Resolved, That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive."</li>
</span></ol><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Pinckney pointed out that if the first resolution passed, the convention’s business was finished as their task was to revise, not replace the articles of confederation [and change the country from a federal union to a national government] (Chief Justice Yate’s minutes, from Wednesday May 30, 1787). (I wonder if anyone noted the irony in claiming that treaties among sovereign states were inadequate to provide for the common defense when they, as sovereign states bound by informal treaties, had just defeated the greatest empire on the face of the earth.) Thankfully, enough alert members agreed with his point and turned down the first two resolutions. But their opposition didn't change the goals of the delegates seeking a national government nor could they match the nationalist's marketing ability and organizational muscle. As a result, the very people arguing for a federal government are known to history as the Anti-federalists and the people pushing for a national government are known as Federalists.<br /><br />
And thus the convention proceeded and the coup d'état succeeded. The fundamental principle of rule was shifted from a federal to a national government. The one bright spot is that the nationalists were forced to add significant protections in the bill of rights in order to secure passage of the final document. While this preserved a large degree of federalism in our government for a time, the final document retained some significant Trojan horses, such as the commerce and general welfare clause, through which the federal principles in the Bill of Rights have been eviscerated, nullified, and largely ignored. In seeking to prove that the two constitutions are really the same document, Farris notes that the retention of un-delegated powers by the states stayed in the Constitution. While this is true, he fails to note the equally important point that this principle, contained in the bill of rights, was only added after the fact in order to keep the whole document from being rejected. In modern times this federal principle has been so completely subordinated to the national principles of the general welfare and commerce clause so as to be practically meaningless. </span>
<br />
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Some of the best men of the day were against it, fearing and predicting the very thing that has happened – men like Patrick Henry.</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Why should Patrick Henry's opinion be believed over the opinion of other founders who supported the new constitution? He recognized the British intentions for what they were, long before most of his peers in the Virginia House. More than anyone else, he can be credited with moving Virginia to prepare for war. Had other courses of action been followed by Virginia, the effort for independence would have certainly been set back and likely never reached maturity. <br /><br />
Many other people were also against the constitution because it lacked strong guarantees against national tyranny. In reading the Anti-Federalist papers, one can’t help but be struck by how many of their concerns have been realized today. <br />
<br />
If this happened to a nation that had just emerged from tyranny, what about today? The general population now is no match for the population of that day, not even close. The government schools have worked their poison deep into our culture. I would fear a constitutional convention if it was comprised of just the republican party of Texas. But in any national convention the republican party of Texas would be on the “radical right,” relatively speaking. The <a href="http://conventionofstates.com/why-it-will-succeed/">response</a> of Convention of States that “It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero” is wishful thinking at best. The fact is that on many occasions more than 38 states have all approved the same or similarly bad legislation.<br />
<br />
For example, abortion is legal in Texas because a pro-life republican legislature amended the homicide section of the penal code (Section 19.06) to allow mothers and doctors to kill their babies (SB319 passed in 2002). In fact this bill exempting doctors and mothers from homicide and assault if they intentionally killed her baby was even billed as a pro-life bill and supported by numerous pro-life agencies! If Roe v. Wade were overturned today, abortion would still be quite legal in Texas and in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state">43 other states</a>. If 44 states are willing to legalize killing unborn children,how can anyone say with a straight face that the chance of 38 states passing a rogue amendment is effectively zero? Maybe they don't consider legalized murder to be a rogue law. One could multiply examples by the 100’s where most, if not all, states have enacted bad laws. In fact, in one case when the legislature did outlaw the murder of unborn children, the people rescinded the law on a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/11/08/south-dakota-nixes-abortion-ban-michigan-voters-ok-anti-affirmative-action/">state wide referendum</a>. Our problem is not the Constitution or the Supreme Court’s bad decision. It’s not even the federal Congress. It’s us.<br />
<br />
If the problem was Congress, it would have been fixed years ago. It takes only 6 years at most to totally clean Congress. But conservative republicans in Texas continue to vote for people like John Cornyn, who sabotaged Senator’s Cruz’s efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act and voted for cloture, allowing it to come to the Senate floor where it was passed by the Democratic majority. It’s not President Obama that’s the problem, it’s the republicans in Texas who vote for people that support ObamaCare. As many flaws as the constitution has, our problem is not the Constitution, it’s not a run-away federal government or congress, it is the people themselves. <br />
<br />
The constitution is only as good as the people who hold it. That’s why Ben Franklin is reputed to have answered Mrs. Powel’s question regarding what type of government the convention had given us with, “A republic, if you can keep it.” The constitution could be perfect and we would still be facing the same problems we face today. Fixing the flaws in the constitution, and there are a number of them, won’t fix our problems. Our freedom is only as strong as the people themselves.<br />
<br />
Think of it this way, we have the Bible. It is a perfect document, without error with respect to everything it says. It gives infallible instruction regarding the duties and powers of the civil magistrate. The scriptures were considered the foundation of our founding documents. The <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ct01.asp">Original Constitution of the Colony of New Haven</a>, June 4, 1639 affirmed unanimously that “the scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to GOD and men, in families and commonwealth, as well as in matters of the church.” The <a href="https://www.blogger.com/dollarnoncents.com/blog/TheMassachusettsBodyofLiberties1641.pdf">Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641)</a> incorporated scripture texts right into the civil law (e.g. Section 94. Capital Laws). Yet even with a perfect document, we’re in a mess today because we don’t follow it. The lesson of history is that even a perfect document can’t preserve liberty.<br />
<br />
The reason is simple. Liberty is based on the principle of obedience or duty and exists only as the result of obedience to the law of God. This is why the law of God is called the perfect law of liberty.</span><br />
<ul><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li>And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts. (Psalm 119:45).</li>
<li>Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Corinthians 3:17)</li>
<li>But whoso looks into the perfect law of liberty, and continues therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:25) </li>
<li>So speak, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:12)</li>
</span></ul><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
But we simply cannot keep the law of God. Ultimately, it is the obedience of Christ through which any and all liberty comes. The result of his perfect obedience to the law of God, which includes his death on the cross, is that we are redeemed from bondage to sin and Satan, his righteousness is imputed to us, and his Spirit, dwelling in us, enables us to walk in his precepts. Political liberty is based on and flows from this liberty we have through Christ’s work. That’s why Leviticus 25:10, a Messianic passage pointing toward Christ’s work of redemption, was put on our Liberty bell. Liberty comes from the gospel of Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
Political liberty requires self-government. Self government requires a heart regenerated by the Holy Spirit. It is the result of a man being led by Christ’s Spirit and enabled by his grace to bring his own actions into conformity with God’s law. Without this work which makes self government possible, there can be no liberty.This concept of freedom only through obedience to the law can be seen in many other applications. A train, for example, enjoys freedom to operate as designed only when it is constrained to run on tracks. It is nearly useless and can go nowhere if it seeks to be “free” of the constraint of the tracks.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<br />
Freedom is the ability to obey the law of God. Tyranny is inability to obey the law of God. That which helps us to obey the law of God brings freedom, that which hinders our ability to obey the law of God brings tyranny and bondage.<br /><br />
To govern is to direct or control the actions of men. Good government is to do so according to the law of God, bringing freedom. Bad government is to do so arbitrarily, according to the whims of man, bringing tyranny. <br />
<br />
The single biggest threat to our liberty is the government school. The most effective means of restoring liberty to his nation would be to eradicate government schools and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/ray-moore-public-schools_n_5192458.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics">the massive taxes they consume</a>, not to convene a constitutional convention. If our tyrannical government won't follow the good law that we do have now, why would they respect a new law any more?</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-28346771925096962372013-11-27T17:27:00.006-06:002022-10-12T11:25:20.479-05:00President Jefferson's Wax Nose<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Pseudo Christians who profess to believe the Bible, but deny
that it is true (aka Liberals) have always confused themselves and Christians.
David Barton is no exception – to being a confused Christian, that is. His
recent work, <i>The Jefferson Lies: Exposing
the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson</i> attempts to refute
those who claim that Jefferson hated the Bible by pointing to Jefferson’s
frequent financial support of efforts to print and distribute Bibles, his
lifelong efforts to compile and read various extracts and summaries of the Bible in
multiple languages, and his assessment and promotion of Jesus as the greatest
moral teacher that ever lived. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ANwcVSAvKMc/UpZ_rA8QplI/AAAAAAAAA5o/f1JgfOoeiMs/s1600/Jefferson+Lies.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ANwcVSAvKMc/UpZ_rA8QplI/AAAAAAAAA5o/f1JgfOoeiMs/s200/Jefferson+Lies.png" height="200" width="128" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Compared to the leading atheists of our day who
openly denigrate Christ and his Word, Jefferson does appear to be “a horse of
a different color.” But is he?<br /><br />
In assessing the religious convictions of President Jefferson
and determining whether he was a friend or foe of Christ and his Word, one
needs to remember that theological heresy is more frequently defined by what it won’t
say than by what it will say. The long apostate Presbyterian church,
that once was the home of faithful men like Archibald Alexander and Samuel
Miller, was recently assembling a new hymnal. One hymn the <a href="http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-04/debating-hymns">committee</a>
really loved had a beautiful verse which read,<br /><br />
<i>For on the cross as
Jesus died<br />
The love of God was magnified.</i><br /><br />
However, when they sought permission to use the hymn from
the copyright holders, they learned that the correct words were:<br /><br />
<i>For on the cross as
Jesus died,<br />
The wrath of God was satisfied.</i><br /><br />
When the copyright holders, to their credit, refused to
grant permission to use the modified words, the committee reluctantly dropped
the hymn. Now both of those statements are true, having strong Biblical
support. Had they included the altered version in the hymnal, few could have
found any theological errors with their work. But in this case their
unwillingness to affirm another foundational truth of scripture exposed their
heresy. Heretics and infidels are not
what they are because they don’t say anything right. They are heretics because
of the wrong things they do affirm or the right things they won’t affirm that
are foundational to the gospel.<br /><br />
Thomas Jefferson’s views on Scripture and Jesus Christ need
to be seen for what they really are – an indirect, but nonetheless deadly
attack on Christ. Jefferson was a liberal in the same mold of the liberals of
early 20<sup>th</sup> century. You can identify liberals (I use this word in its technical theological sense. It is not meant to be a pejorative or complimentary descriptor of someone's character.) by their answer to a
question couplet. It goes like this:<br /><br />
Ask a liberal, “Do you believe the Jonah account is true?" They will typically say yes. Then ask if they believe Jonah was actually
swallowed by a fish? A liberal will say no. Other couplets will also work.<br /><br />
Do you believe the gospel account of Jesus birth? Many
liberals will say yes. Do you believe Jesus was born of a woman who had never
known a man? A liberal will say no. Do you believe
the Genesis 1-11 account of creation is true? Most will say yes. Do you believe
the earth is about 6000 years old? They will say no. (Granted, many liberals today would answer no
to both questions of these couplets, but these types of honest liberals don’t
confuse others and are not my focus.)<br /><br />
A liberal uses the same words as Christians, but he doesn't mean the same thing by those words. This was the case with Jefferson. In defending
Jefferson, Barton summarizes his views by saying,<br /><br />
<i>“Jefferson owned <b>many </b> Bibles, belonged to a Bible
society and contributed to it, gave out copies of the full, unedited text of
the traditional Bible, and assisted in publishing and distributing Bibles. In
each of these situations, Jefferson had the opportunity to indicate his personal
displeasure with the Bible or at least refrain from participating, but he did
not do so.” </i>[Emphasis in original] p69.<br /><br />
But in his short chapter defending Jefferson’s view of the
Bible, he never tells us about the fundamental statements that Jefferson won’t
affirm or of his blatant denial of Christ’s deity. Let’s take a look at a few
of these statements from his own letters.<br /><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">“That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the
son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men
more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously
believe himself inspired from above, is very possible.</span>
</i>Letter to William Short Monticello, August 4, 1820,
Vol 19, p14<br /><br />
Elsewhere in the same letter Jefferson heaps mountains of
scorn on God’s word and the holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write
it:<br /><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">I say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the
vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his
biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a
groundwork [i.e. the gospels] of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms
and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the
Supreme Being, aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence,
sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect
of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and
persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of
<b>the groveling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their
feeble minds.</b> The parts fall asunder of themselves, as would those of an image
of metal and clay.</span></i>[emphasis added]<br /><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i>There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection,
which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; </i>[In other words, denying
that the whole Bible is the word of Christ, Jefferson even finds some of Christ’s
own words objectionable. -PA] <i>but claiming indulgence from the
circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation of some
articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had
presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character,
cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. </i>[This is pure blasphemy on Jefferson’s part calling
the just and righteous God cruel, vindictive, unjust. -PA] </span><i><span style="color: blue;">Jesus, taking
for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice,
goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite
perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their
adoration.</span> </i>Letter to William Short, Monticello, August 4, 1820, Vol 19 p13.<br /><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i>But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved
religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really
his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable
from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of
the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man; outlines
which it is lamentable he did not live to fill up. Epictetus and Epicurus give
laws for governing ourselves, Jesus a supplement of the duties and charities we
owe to others. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this
benevolent moralist, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture,
which has resulted from artificial systems, (*) invented by ultra-Christian
sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by him, is a most desirable
object, and one to which Priestley has successfully devoted his labors and
learning. It would in time, it is to be hoped, effect
a quiet euthanasia of the heresies of bigotry and fanaticism which have so long
triumphed over human reason, and so generally and deeply afflicted mankind; but
this work is to be begun by winnowing the grain from the chaff of the
historians of his life. </i>[Who are the historians of his life – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to
begin with. - PA] <i>I have sometimes thought of
translating Epictetus (for he has never been tolerable translated into English)
by adding the genuine doctrines of Epicurus from the Syntagma
of Gassendi, and an abstract from the Evangelists of
whatever has the stamp of the eloquence and fine imagination of Jesus. </i></span>Letter
to William Short, with a Syllabus, Monticello, October 31, 1819, Vol 19, p11.<br /><br />
What are the artificial systems invented by ultra- Christian
sects from which the historical Jesus needs to be rescued? We don’t have to
guess. He lists them himself at the end of the paragraph. They include (*) the
deity of Christ, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his
resurrection and visible ascension, the Trinity, original sin, atonement,
regeneration, and election to name a few.<br /><br />
In Biblical terms Jefferson was an antichrist in that he denied that Jesus was the Christ and that he was God in the flesh.<br />
</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">1 John_2:22 Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son.</span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li>1 John_4:3 And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. </li>
<li>2 John_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. </li>
</span></ul><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
In the terms of church history, Jefferson is an Arian who denies that Jesus
is God in the flesh or that he had anything to do with creation or our
atonement. Arians have been anathematized by the Christian church as infidels since
the 4<sup>th</sup> century. That means the catholic church
(i.e. worldwide, not Roman) has long held that people who do not believe Jesus
is God are not Christians. He denies the resurrection. Paul said that if the
resurrection was not true, then our faith was in vain. Paul even says that those who taught that the resurrection was past have shipwrecked the faith. (1 Timothy 1:19-20,
2 Timothy 2:17-18) What would he say about someone who denies it altogether? Jefferson denies the Bible is the word of God, calling much
in the gospels chaff from which the word of God needs to be separated. He
denigrates Christ’s power over creation and the grave. Paul’s assessment of
such statements is: “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking
by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus
is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3<br /><br />
Paul said that if Christ be not raised our faith is in vain.
If Christ is not God, he died in vain. Those who don’t believe the Trinity are
to be anathematized according to the Council of Nicea
(325AD). To deny all these truths about Christ makes one an infidel.<br /><br />
Jefferson was an infidel like many liberals who filled the
pulpits of the 20<sup>th</sup>century churches and signed documents like the <a href="http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/auburntext.html" target="_blank">Auburn Affirmation</a> of 1924. They studied the Bible, but rejected it message and its Savior. These are dangerous people in that they might
appear to many to be sheep, they are, in fact, wolves
seeking to destroy the church of Jesus Christ. <br /><br />
Yet despite all these clear statements, Mr. Barton inexplicably states that <i>"there was never a time when he was anti-Jesus or when he rejected Christianity."</i> p167. If the denial of the resurrection, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Christ's eternal pre-incarnate existence isn't a denial of Christianity, I don't know what is! Mr. Barton, what do you think Christianity does believe?<br /><br />
It is true that Thomas Jefferson faced many trials, including losing his wife at a relatively young age. But that is not an excuse for denying God. A Christian will ultimately persevere through the trial by the grace of God. It is also true that Jefferson said many good things, even things that might appear to indicate that was a Christian. But one must remember, heresy is often more defined by what people will not affirm than by what they do affirm. Also it is not uncommon even today for politicians to "speak like a Christian" in order to appeal to the masses. But even some of the "better" thing he said indicate he believed a false gospel. For example, in a letter to Salma Hale on July 26, 1818, he wrote, "[I]t is only by ... getting back to the plain and unsophisticated precepts of Christ that we become real Christians." This, or a variation of it, is common liberal notion. But it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a false gospel that has deceived many, sending them to eternal judgment under the wrath of God. We are not saved by getting back to the simple precepts of Christ. Precepts are laws. Laws don't save anyone. We are saved by faith in Christ. Keeping the golden rule may make many think they are good people, but God's word says otherwise. <br /><br />
Jefferson may have thought of himself as a Christian because he was a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. But as we have seen, he denied all the important, foundational doctrines of the gospel. He was a disciple of a god of his own making, not of the historical Jesus who was made flesh and dwelt among us. He may have believed in god, but it wasn't the Triune God of the Bible.<br /><br />
Jefferson may have been a very moral man. But morals don't save anyone. As Jesus said, <i>"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."</i>
Matthew 7:22-23<br /><br />
The evidence in Jefferson's own words is clear. Contrary to what Barton writes, <i>"...but what cannot be questioned is the fact that throughout his life, Jefferson was pro-Christian and pro-Jesus in his beliefs, demeanor, and public endeavors"</i> (p192), Jefferson was an infidel. This fact is not altered one bit by the fact that there were many churches teaching similar false doctrine to what Jefferson believed. Even if everyone in the entire world is teaching a lie, God word is still True.<br /><br />
Mr. Barton, please stop promoting an infidel heretic as "pro' Christ and "pro" Christian. You are spitting in the face of your Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />Update: A parallel <a href="http://www.worldmag.com/2012/08/doubting_thomas" target="_blank">article by World magazine</a> raises similar concerns. (11/30/2014)</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-27991135482145216192013-08-20T23:19:00.002-05:002022-11-30T17:37:59.166-06:00The Price of Liberty<span style="font-size: large;">This man says it well. Defending yourself takes a lot of practice and a willingness to die doing so. It is worth listening all the way to the end!<br />
See this earlier <a href="http://blog.dollarnoncents.com/2013/01/an-honest-liberal.html">post</a> for a fuller discussion <br />
</span><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pkWgp2abM2w" width="640"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-90732268281082787682013-07-14T08:37:00.012-05:002022-11-30T17:38:49.130-06:00Missing Money Almost Totals Entire National Debt<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Why are we not seeing these headlines?<br /><br />Here's a great graphical overview of the accounting fraud being perpetrated by the United States. Apparently Eron's only crime was that its fraud was not grand enough - or a case of professional jealousy over their inept and puny attempt at imitation.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/MissingMoneyGraphic.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: left; "><img alt="" border="0" height="7080" data-original-height="7080" data-original-width="900" src="http://www.blog.dollarnoncents.com/files/MissingMoneyGraphic.jpg"/></a></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-2253262518197006662013-07-11T13:47:00.003-05:002022-10-12T11:31:16.152-05:00Government Medicine Increases Costs<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Government medicine plagued us long before Mr. Obama became president. Just as socialized education and socialized medicine began with accepting the government's money, so undoing those evils begins with rejecting their money, as homeschoolers have been doing with socialized education.<br /><br />
This hospital is now following the same path with socialized medicine by rejecting government subsidies and they are getting the same results that homeschoolers are getting. Look at those healthcare prices fall! Parents can educate their own children for a fraction of what it costs socialized education to babysit children. So it's no surprise to learn that hospitals that reject government subsidies can treat patients for a fraction of what it costs socialized medicine to treat those same patients.<br /><br />
<a href="http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/">http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/</a>
<br /><br />
Here are a few examples:<br />
</span><br />
<ul><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<li>Mercy Hospital charged $16, 244 for a breast biopsy; the procedure will cost $3,500 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma.</li>
<br />
<li>Medical Center billed $20,456 for the open repair of a fracture; the procedure will cost $4,855 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma.</li>
<br />
<li>Medical Center billed $21,556 for a gall bladder removal surgery; the procedure will cost $5,865 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma.</li>
<br />
<li>Medical Center billed $23,934 for an ankle arthroscopy; the procedure will cost $3,740 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma.</li>
<br />
<li>Integris Baptist billed $37,174 for a hysterectomy; the surgery costs $8,000 at Surgery Center of Oklahoma.</li>
<br />
</span></ul>
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0uPdkhMVdMQ" width="560"></iframe>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-87130111863251351272013-06-26T17:50:00.009-05:002022-11-30T18:16:12.546-06:00A Family Affair<span style="font-size: large;">When was the last time you read an article like this in your local newspaper?<br /><br />A joyful gathering of a large and happy family at the old homestead.<br /><br />One of those days that seldom come in the life of a large family, but which is so full of the joy and happiness, was successfully celebrated at the home of Mr. & Mrs. William Shade of Wayne Township, Mifflin county, on last Saturday, August 10, 1901. It was the day set apart for the reunion of their family.<br /><br />With the children come the grandchildren, and with the grandchildren come the great-grandchildren, and with such kindly favor surely the giver of the ever good and perfect gift looked down upon this family. So strong and mighty has it become that the old house could no longer shelter the family as in the years gone by, so that it was necessary to hold the gathering in the beautiful grove which forms a part of the homestead. Had an all wise Providence allowed man to dictate the conditions that should prevail upon that day, they could not have been better suited to the occasion.<br /><br />Very early in the morning the dear ones began to arrive, coming from all points of the compass, and as the venerable couple greeted the last arrival their feelings were well expressed in the words of the Psalmist; "Surely goodness and mercy have followed us all the days of our lives, and we will dwell in the house of the Lord forever."<br /><br />At 11 o' clock the exercises of the day were opened with singing by the young people, after which the assemblage was led in prayer by the Rev. Vondersmith, followed by addresses by Rev. H. W. Koehler, Rev. Vondersmith, and Jacob Stine, each dwelling on the happiness of the occasion and rejoicing with Mr. and Mrs. Shade.<br /><br />...<br />The article goes on to list 30 recitations, skits (called dialogues), and songs, and instrumental pieces performed by family members. In closing,<br /><br />Ten of the eleven children, sixty two grandchildren, and twelve great-grandchildren, together with their wives and husbands, made a gathering that numbered over one hundred, and excellent testimonial to the love and esteem in which Mr. and Mrs. Shade are held by those whom they love and have nurtured and raised.<br /><br />- Democrat Sentinel Paper of Lewistown, Penna. Saturday August 17, 1901.<br /><br />The couple mentioned in this article are my wife's maternal grandmother's paternal grandparents.<br />
<br />
For good or bad, the press controls the tempo and topic of the national conversation. There is no such thing as a neutral or impartial press. It is always promoting or denigrating something. The question is, What? Skillful press is able to do so without the typical reader even realizing what is being promoted or denigrated.</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">© Peter S. Allison</div>Peter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.com0