The 2012 presidential election is perhaps the most important election in the history of this country.  The stakes riding on the outcome of this election are enormous; it will either breathe new life into freedom or sound the death knell of liberty.  Of grave concern to individuals such as myself is the average American’s absolute lack of knowledge of history and the continuing struggle between advocates of the freedom and liberty of the individual (the founding principles of this country) and the advocates of collectivism and the power of the state.  The language of those seeking the office of president, and those opposing and supporting them, have reached levels of mendacity never before seen.  I focus on only one candidate (subsequent columns will focus on others), Rick Santorum, Republican candidate for president from Pennsylvania.

In her Washington Post article dated February 26, 2012, Nia-Malika Henderson writes, “Asked Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” how his faith fits in with his ideas about governing, Santorum said he disagreed with the “absolute separation” between church and state outlined by Kennedy in a 1960 speech.  Santorum said reading the speech made him want to “throw up.”  “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.””  Later in the article she writes of Mr. Santorum, ““True happiness comes from doing God’s will,” he said as the audience at Central Baptist Church cheered and gave him a nearly minute-long standing ovation. “It comes from not doing what you want to do, but doing what you ought to do.”  At a rally Sunday evening in Davison, Mich., that opened with a prayer and gospel hymns, Santorum was introduced as a “man who knows a nation cannot rise without God’s aid.””

I can just hear my friends, fellow church members, and listeners saying, “Rodney, what is wrong with you?  You have led us to believe that your Christian beliefs are the focal point of your life and you have a problem with what Mr. Santorum is saying here?”  I respond, “My Christian beliefs are as important, if not more so, than they ever have been in my entire life, but before you start saying Amen to Mr. Santorum’s words, especially my evangelical Christian brothers and sisters, you either need to remember, relearn, or learn our history from just a short fifty-two years ago in 1960 (there is nothing new under the sun, only those lessons of history we refuse to learn or choose to ignore).  John F. Kennedy was not the admired candidate, or president, revisionist historians would have us believe.  As a matter of fact he was in a tight neck and neck race with the Vice President (Richard Nixon) of a very popular outgoing President; Dwight D. Eisenhower.  John F. Kennedy was not swept into the office of president on a tidal wave of popular support, in fact, if memory serves correctly, Mr. Nixon won the popular vote but Mr. Kennedy garnered enough votes in the Electoral College to win the election (take that you progressives who want to eliminate the Electoral College); it is said that Mr. Kennedy’s margin of victory was equal to a difference of only one vote in every precinct in the United States.

Until 1960 a member of the Catholic faith had never been elected to the highest office in this land and people, especially evangelical Christians, Southern Baptists in particular, were quite concerned at the prospect of a Catholic being elected president (I mean no offense, I’m just telling it like it was then).  Why the fear of electing a Catholic president?  In 1960 free people had not forgotten history and understood that it was the theocratic tyranny of the unholy, incestuous relationship between the Catholic Church, along with its bastardized offspring the Church of England, and the state which had kept not only the people of Europe, but the American colonies as well, in bondage and serfdom to the state and the church for centuries because the state enforced the official position of the church, the edicts of the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury (Robin Hood did not rob from the rich and give to the poor, he robbed from the state and the church and gave to the people the church and state colluded together to rob and oppress).  Evangelical Christians in 1960 were deeply fearful of a return to this theocracy.  I can remember hearing not only church deacons but my grandmother saying, “If Kennedy is elected, he will take his orders from the Pope and the Pope will run this country.”  Mr. Kennedy gave the speech Mr. Santorum finds so offensive in 1960 for one reason and one reason only, to dispel the fears and concerns of evangelical Christians in order to win the election (fast forward to 2012 and the children and grandchildren of those old deacons are cheering and applauding the very absolutism their daddies and granddaddies feared).

Our founders understood that the only way to prohibit a return to the oppression of the church/state confederacy they had revolted against was to prevent such an alliance from ever reoccurring in this country.  In order to prevent a return of such autocracy in the United States our founders left no doubt of their intentions.  Article VI, Section 3 of our Constitution says, “…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  This was still not sufficient to secure ratification of the constitution and only the promise of The Bill of Rights brought about ratification.  As such, the first words of the 1^st Amendment read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Do not misunderstand me, I loathe the phrase “separation of church and state” because the axiom “separation of church and state” is an expression the statist agents of tyranny, both liberal and conservative, have utilized to obfuscate truth; there is an immense gulf between “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” and “separation of church and state”. One acknowledges the most fundamental right of a free individual; that free individual’s freedom to worship the god, or gods, of that free individual’s choice, or the liberty of that free individual to not worship a god at all, according to the dictates of that free individual’s conscience: The other grants to the state the authoritarian power to order what is and is not “separation of church and state” along with the coercive force required to enforce the dictates of the state.  Mr. Santorum’s campaign, based on his rhetoric, seeks to turn our Constitution wrong side out and render this basic right of a free individual null and void.

In his 1795 essay “Dissertations on First Principles of Government” Thomas Paine concluded with these words, “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

The core founding principle of this country is the freedom of the individual over the power and security of the state and the wants of the group. No major party espouses this principle. No candidate even talks of this, much less pledge it. We see before us today the result of the two major parties in this country subverting our Constitution and hijacking our elections. The Republicans and Democrats have colluded together to write restrictive ballot access legislation, both at the state and national level, which make it all but impossible for other voices and ideas to be heard on the ballot. Our election commissions, at all levels, and those who oversee our elections represent their particular party, not the people. Guess who they look after! The two major parties consider the ballot to be theirs, not the people’s! The two major parties tell us that we must sell them our vote; that to vote for anyone else, for any other ideas is to waste one’s vote; that the only way to access the political system is via the mechanism of their particular party. To The Republic’s detriment, the majority of Americans fall for this lie.

What we have learned, sadly at the cost of freedom and liberty is that this only leads to one of the two major political parties wielding the reins of a despotic government. The argument between Republicans and Democrats is not whether the Federal Government should grow; the argument between them is what rate it shall grow at and what the funds are spent on. There is no talk of limited constitutional government, from either side of the aisle, a small minority excepted. In 2008, sick of the Republicans, this country, like suicidal lemmings to the sea, ran in a panic over the cliff provided by the Democrats; now, four short years later, like suicidal lemmings to the sea once again, our country is prepared to run over the cliff conveniently provided this time by–the Republicans. And we expect a different result??? Albert Einstein said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

It is easy to be a champion of liberty for those who say the things we like to hear and do the things we agree with, that fit neatly where we want them to fit. But, freedom does not allow one this luxury. The cost of freedom is not only paid by brave young Americans on foreign soil; freedom asks her due from us, right here at home, whether we like it or not. Passing laws to shun this duty has not only weakened The Constitution and The Republic; it has rung the death knell of liberty in America. This is the test! This is where we pass or fail for individual freedom. This is the price of liberty! Allowing an individual to do (as long as they are doing it in private or in the company of other consenting adults) the activities they desire to do and say things they want to say; words and activities that absolutely turn one’s stomach.

Does anyone else remember the first video game Pong? How excited we all were when the home edition was released and we play at home rather than drop quarters in the machine at the arcade (or bowling alley, or wherever)? There was something unique about that game. Just as you could do with the arcade edition, with the home edition you could get the “paddles” lined up just right on the left and right side of the TV screen and the “ball” would just bounce back and forth and back and forth and back and forth endlessly, mindlessly, in a straight line with no effort required; just surrender to the machine. As long as no one touched the “paddle” controller the “ball” would endlessly bounce back and forth, never deviating from its path; precisely where the socialist/collectivist Democrats and fascist/statist Republicans and their servants in the media have positioned Americans and we obligingly, mindlessly bounce back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth as they destroy the republic; And all but forgotten, the simple solution to end the mindless back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth and the tyranny of the machine. Just simply move the “paddle”, just barely and the “ball” would begin to move in random patterns, the life blood of the freedom and liberty of the individual, the death knell of tyranny.

When I was growing up being a Southern Baptist did not mean what it does today. Baptists did not go along to get along. When other denominations altered their message for a “changing world”, we clung ever tighter to the old ways; we were criticized for our “slaughter house” religion of preaching The Blood of Jesus; we were criticized because our Pastors would not sit on ecumenical councils, join alliances of churches or any such nonsense as that because we understood that to do so meant to eventually compromise on the principles we believed in even in the face of death, in order to get along, to be reasonable. Pastors and Evangelists alike openly spoke from the Pulpit against false teachings and false doctrine and did not care what denomination they named or whose toes they stepped on. Church attendance for a child (even a big teenager) was not optional. We did not go to church for the activities, we went to learn about God and how to live for Him.

On Sunday morning we went to Sunday School and studied God’s Word, we did not go to “children’s church” (do not construe this as a criticism of such), we sat in church, behaved (or learned how to rather quickly, Daddy’s belt was a quick study), stayed awake, listened to and followed the Preacher’s sermon in our Bible (Daddy just might ask a question after church at Sunday Dinner). On Sunday afternoon we went to a home youth Bible study then youth choir practice, Sunday night we went to Training Union where we were taught how to live a Christian life, and then we went to Sunday night service where we were expected to behave just as we did that morning. Monday, Tuesday or Thursday nights (depending on which church) we met at the church and then went out knocking on doors, visiting others, telling them about Jesus, asking them to come to church with us. Wednesday night was not mid-week service; on Wednesday night we gathered to eat supper together, had our activities; Deacon’s meeting, Officer’s & Teacher’s meeting, business meeting (1st Wednesday), RA’s, GA’s for the children (they were centered on learning about God, His Word and how to live in service to it); but Wednesday night was Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting where the Pastor would deliver a brief (and I mean brief) message because it was Wednesday night and our church was there to pray; I am talking about the entire church on their knees and faces before God for hours, praying for healing, salvation, our nation, God’s guidance for our lives, and after Prayer Meeting, adult choir practice (which included some youth).

All of our “outside” activities revolved around church; revivals (ever been to a tent revival?), Sunday school class parties, Training Union class parties, birthday parties, dinner on the grounds, Sunday school/Training Union classes just hanging out at their teacher’s home, home bible study classes, baseball teams, hayrides, youth choir missionary trips to the Rescue Mission downtown, church camp in the summer, our friends at school were our church group; our lives centered on God’s Church, His Word and our duty to be obedient to God’s Word. Our parents took the admonition of Deuteronomy 6:5-7 quite seriously (NKJV), “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.” Our parents knew that if they taught and provided us with the principles of the right moral compass for our lives; if we would not compromise these principles we would mature into responsible adults who consistently made the right moral choices, especially when we selected candidates for office. We did all this in addition to our studies in school and all we wanted from the state was to be left alone to worship as we saw fit.

Then something happened in the early 1970s, Roe vs. Wade! Being “pro life” became paramount over principle; God’s Word was replaced by political nattering. “Pro life” became the mantra for born again Christians, forget everything else, “pro life”, above all else, was the litmus test of how Christians should vote; Politics replaced obedience to God as the order of the day. We heard it from the pulpit, in our Sunday school classes, on TV, we read it in books; our Pastors began to join ministerial alliances, they began to compromise Biblical principles to participate in the pro vs. anti abortion political fight. Did not matter what a candidate believed about anything else, even if it was diametrically opposed to our principles, that candidate was “pro life” and we began to be taught that we must compromise principle, hold our nose, and vote for the lesser of two evils. We were told we had to now tailor our message for a “changing” world (not so much talk about being washed in The Blood); first to go was weekly visitation (it offends to knock on folk’s door and ask them about Jesus), Wednesday night Prayer Meeting became the mid week service, RAs, GAs and church leagues were abandoned (the state provides activities and besides there is the Boy and Girl Scouts), “children’s church” sprang up (again not an indictment) because we did not want the hassle of dealing/instructing children in the service, church camp and youth mission trips fell by the wayside because our children had so many other activities outside church, and then the coup de tat – no more Sunday night services because people are just too busy; God and His church ceased being the center of our lives and became, instead, just another activity for a few hours Wednesday night and Sunday morning; a salve for our conscience not to be taken with us in our daily lives but left behind as we walked out the door; Being accepted by the world became more important than separating ourselves from it.

This compromise came with an awful cost. Young adults began to legitimately ask a most terrible question for which church leaders had no answer, “You taught me as a child that these teachings were truths that have ever been and would last through the ages but now you are compromising them when it suits you. What else did you teach me was “a truth” that really is not, that can be compromised when it suits your fancy?” Young adults began leaving the church because of Adolf Hitler’s axiom, “As soon as by one’s own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one’s own right is laid.” It turned around and struck church leaders quicker than a rattlesnake. By abandoning principle church leaders not only doomed their churches but this nation as well. Our Founders, and my parents, understood that without its citizens having a firm moral compass which has unyielding principles the United States would quickly fall into the moral degradation and idolatry we witness today. John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Samuel Adams, “He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections.” Fisher Ames, “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”

Christian church leaders are to blame for declining church attendance in addition to much, much more than that to answer for.

June 5, 1788 speaking to the Virginia Ratifying Convention Patrick Henry asked, “Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people.  Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves are gone; and have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit.  Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?  You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism.  We may see such an act in America.  A standing army we shall have also, to execute the commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them?  Will you order them to be punished?  Who shall obey these orders?  Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

In June of 1787 before the Constitutional Convention James Madison said, “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

In “Political Observations”, April 20, 1795, Madison writes, “Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.  War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.  In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both.  No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.  War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it.  In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”

F.A. Hayek wrote “The Road To Serfdom” in 1944 and he titled Chapter 10 “Why The Worst Get On Top”.  In it he offers warnings fitting for The United States after the passage of the NDAA.  He says, “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule.  There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves ‘the good of the whole’, because that is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done.”  He then cautions, “Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of the features of totalitarian regimes which horrify us follow necessity.  From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual, are essential and unavoidable consequences of this basic premise,…”  As he brings Chapter 10 to a close Hayek shows what the NDAA will bring, “To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state, it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds; he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him.  Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own.  They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader, but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything.  They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realize; no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader. … The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such and the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way.”  He then offers his most frightening warning, “Yet while there is little to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous.  There will be jobs to be done about  the badness of which taken by themselves nobody has any doubt, but which have to be done in the service of some higher end, and which have to be executed with the same expertness and efficiency as any others.  And as there will be need for actions which are bad in themselves, and which all those still influenced by traditional morals will be reluctant to perform, the readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power.  The positions in a totalitarian society in which it is necessary to practice cruelty and intimidation, deliberate deception and lying, are numerous.”

In her January 5, 2012 column “From Democracy To Dictatorship” Becky Akers writes, “As I walk the streets of Manhattan, I study the other pedestrians and wonder if they sense our danger. A mother pushing her son’s stroller laughs into her cell phone; two elderly gentlemen greet each other effusively; a jogger shuffles past; shoppers lug their treasures home. No one looks especially worried or upset, and I wonder if they’ve heard about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).”  She then asks, “ How can the sun brightly shine and taxis whiz past as if nothing has changed?” and warns, “With this legislation, America joins some of the modern world’s most brutal dictatorships – regimes like Nazi Germany, Mao’s China, and communist Russia. Places where people disappear into concentration camps or gulags, for any reason or, more usually, none at all. Nations in which citizens don’t count except for the taxes and labor they furnish the State. These contemporary serfs exist only to further their rulers’ whims; they dare not voice even the faintest opposition for fear of ruthless reprisal.”

Our country was founded on a system of beliefs which has at its core the freedom and liberty of the individual. Our Founders feared the government we see in Washington today. Though our Founders held different interpretations of the characteristics of God, of His Son Jesus Christ (some even doubted His deity), and of the most correct/proper way to worship Them (this country was not founded as a Christian nation), they unanimously and sincerely believed that God was an all-powerful Creator who rules the universe and intercedes for mankind. Despite differences of religious dogma after Washington’s inauguration they (President, House of Representatives, Senate) gathered in St. Paul’s Chapel on April 30, 1789 as members of America’s first government to consecrate the future of this nation to God because of a solid belief that our rights come from God, not government, and were in complete agreement when it came to the pursuit for liberty and the freedom of conscience that permitted diversity of worship. They wrote a constitution to protect those freedoms. Theirs was not a belief which made provisions for a changing “modern” world. Theirs, and at one time this country’s, was a firm belief that God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe and that the only way mankind can enjoy the blessings of liberty is through fear of and obedience to a holy, righteous God who makes no provision for “modern” thought.

Consider their words. Thomas Jefferson, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.” Jefferson again, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” George Washington, “While we are contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable.” James Madison, “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”

“Modern” thought says our Constitution and Bill of Rights, gifts from a loving God make no mistake of this, is not adequate for our “modern” “ever changing” world and they must be consigned to the scrap heap of history. “Modern” thought teaches that our freedom comes from our “humanity” and is a gift of government, not God. What is being touted as “modern” thought is not “modern” in the least; it is as old as man. It is the same thought by which man has forever been enslaved since he ate of the forbidden fruit for it is the illusion of freedom spun by the reality of tyranny. Once a people lose sight that the blessings of freedom come from the Ruler of the Universe, not from their “humanity”, they have begun the descent into serfdom because it ultimately leads to rejection of the giver of all gifts, God.

I saw that movie with her forty years ago and I remain an anachronism (I refuse to call myself magnificent). I still read books and turn off the television to do so. I do not have, or want, a cell phone. My reading list rejects “modern” thought, just as I do. I cling with all my might to the principles this country was founded upon and defend them with all my might so that I may have the freedom to unashamedly worship the Lord God from whom freedom, true freedom, comes; not slavery (I’ll let you figure from whence slavery comes).

On June 5, 1788, 1788!, Patrick Henry said to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “Liberty the greatest of earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else. But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old fashioned fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so I am contented to be so:”

So I ask you, this new year why not become an anachronism?

However since the day history began, September 11, 2001, American military veterans have been celebrated on November 11th as conquering heroes, not harbingers of peace. Meals have been, and will be, bought for them on this day, drinks have been, and will be, bought for them, their hands will be shaken and they will be patted on the back, by people they don’t even know, in order to celebrate the veteran’s “service” to our country. Not to be left out and certainly not to be separated from the secular world, on Sunday the 13th or perhaps the week before on Sunday the 6th, our churches will hold special veteran services. Veterans will be asked to stand, the pastor will thank them for their service to the country in platitudes such as “freedom is not free” accompanied by fervent Amen’s, patriotic hymns will be sung with spiritual and patriotic fervor by the assembled throngs without once ever considering the words of Howard Malcom in his 1845 essay “The Criminality of War”, “All the features, all the concomitants, all the result of war, are opposed to the features, the concomitants, the results of Christianity. The systems conflict in every point, irreconcilably and forever.”

Christians do not want to face the truth of the question, “Are these individuals really heroes, especially if they are a Christians?” Every individual who enters into the military in this country is required to take an oath. However, our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:33-34 (NKJV throughout) says, “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;” Do not misunderstand me, I made this same mistake in my youth, but in my old age I have come to understand the error of my ways. In Matthew 6:24, Jesus explains the magnitude of the error I and other Christians have made, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Christians must be committed to God, not the state and once one swears an oath to the state, or an instrument of the state, if that individual is to honor their commitment, as Christians are commanded, then at some point one will be required to choose between our oath to the state and our obedience to God.

God has given my Pastor a series of messages which my Pastor has entitled “The One New Man” taken from the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. This series of messages centers on Ephesians 2:15, “having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,”. In the greatest sermon ever preached, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells His followers that we will be persecuted for His sake, Matthew 5:11-12, not that we are to persecute others in His sake; in Matthew 5:38-42 Jesus does not give His followers leave to retaliate against those who persecute them, rather He forbids it; right after that in Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus commands His followers to love our enemies, not to despise, defile and hate them. Early church Christians followed these commandments until the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and “ordered” the entire Ottoman Empire to be converted to Christianity, since then latter church Christians, not so much. Just because we have received the “new covenant” does not mean we can to ignore the Commandments of the “old covenant”. Receiving the “new covenant” does not give us leave to turn our backs on God’s Word when it suits our earthly purpose. If anything, the gift of grace which the “new covenant” gives to us should be the Christian’s call for absolute obedience to His Word.

One Sunday in my church we had a man who spoke to us about what he called “the spirit of Islam”. His message, understandably, upset a number of people who have no idea what is going on outside of South Arkansas, much less America itself. Christians must not, however, allow their fear of “the spirit of Islam” to lead them down paths expressly forbidden by their Savior. I do not disagree with what the gentleman said about “the spirit of Islam”, I disagree with how modern day Christians choose to deal with “the spirit of Islam”; “the spirit of Islam” will not be killed by the Marines or bombed into submission by the Air Force. In my Pastor’s messages on “The One New Man” Paul tells us in Ephesians 6:12 precisely where “the one new man” is to fight “the spirit of Islam”, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” and in Ephesians 6:13-20 exactly how “the one new man” is to fight “the spirit of Islam”, “Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.” Once Christians are obedient to God’s Word and realize that our battlefields are not in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, or even Iran and become “the one new man” and “take up the whole armor of God”; that God has provided no spiritual armor for the back of “the one new man” because none is required, then our fear of “the spirit of Islam” will grow strangely dim.

Malcom calls Christians into account for their love of war, “But the chief wonder is that CHRISTIANS, followers of the Prince of Peace, should have concurred in this mad idolatry of strife, and thus been inconsistent not only with themselves, but with the very genius of their system. Behold a man going from the Lord’s Supper, fantastically robed and plumed, drilling himself into skilful modes of butchery, and studying the tactics of death! Behold him murdering his fellow Christians, and praying to his Divine Master for success in the endeavor! Behold processions marching to the house of God to celebrate bloody victories, and give thanks for having been able to send thousands and tens of thousands to their last account with all their sins upon their heads! Stupendous inconsistency!” Later in the essay he poses, “Imagine the Savior robbed in the trappings of a man of blood, leading columns to slaughter, setting fire to cities, laying waste the country, storming fortresses, and consigning thousands to wounds, anguish and death, just to define a boundary, settle a point of policy, or decide some kingly quarrel.” The words may make no sense to 2011 Christianity but for some reason I think they make perfect sense to “the one new man”!

“SANAA, Yemen — Anwar al-Aulaqi, a radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda leaders wanted by the United States, was killed Friday in a U.S. drone strike in northern Yemen, Yemeni and American authorities said, eliminating a prominent terrorist recruiter who inspired attacks on U.S. soil.

The strike also killed a second U.S. citizen — Samir Khan, the co-editor of an al-Qaeda magazine — and two other unidentified al-Qaeda operatives, the Yemeni government said.”

On The New York Times web site I found, “The search for Mr. Awlaki, the American-born cleric whose fiery sermons made him a larger-than-life figure in the shadowy world of jihad, finally ended on Friday.”

The 1st Amendment to our Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791 says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The 5th Amendment to our Constitution, ratified December 15,1791 says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The 6th Amendment to our Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791 says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Writing “Dissertations on First Principles of Government” in 1795, Thomas Paine closes, “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” What will you do when your Pastor, in your church, is labeled fiery by the government? Patrick Henry asked and answered that question for you on June 5, 1788 speaking to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in opposition to ratification of the constitution, “Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have also, to execute the commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

America claims to be a Christian nation. Are We? Consider the words of Howard Malcom in his essay “The Criminality of War”, written in 1845, “But the chief wonder is that CHRISTIANS, followers of the Prince of Peace, should have concurred in this mad idolatry of strife, and thus been inconsistent not only with themselves, but with the very genius of their system. Behold a man going from the Lord’s Supper, fantastically robed and plumed, drilling himself into skilful modes of butchery, and studying the tactics of death! Behold him murdering his fellow Christians, and praying to his Divine Master for success in the endeavor! Behold processions marching to the house of God to celebrate bloody victories, and give thanks for having been able to send thousands and tens of thousands to their last account with all their sins upon their heads! Stupendous inconsistency!”

Should you wish to ignore Malcom’s words, consider then the words of our Lord Jesus contained in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 38-48 (NKJV), ““You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

Americans must return to the understanding that “American Exceptionalism” does not constitute that which tyrants would have us believe, a belief in “my country right or wrong”, that whatever the government of the United States decides is right is in fact right, no matter what. Americans must remember that “American Exceptionalism” is outlined in the first ten amendments to our Constitution, known as The Bill of Rights. Principles which say the freedom and liberty of the individual are paramount over the needs of the state or the wants of the group. Like him or hate him, Mr. Awlaki was an American citizen. Those who “piloted” the drones that shot this airplane down swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”; Not to worship the “cult of the presidency” and obey the orders of a tyrant, especially if the tyrant is called The Commander in Chief. On November 10, 1798 Thomas Jefferson writing Resolutions Relative to the Alien and Sedition Acts said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

In 1802, Thomas Paine warned that within a few years of the War for Independence and the ratification of the Constitution, a faction (James Madison utilizes this very word in Federalist #39) that had “lost sight of first principles” was “beginning to consider government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property.” It was this callous appetite for power, Paine determined, that encouraged the effort to criminalize as sedition any attempt to “oppose any measure of the government of the United States” or to express any opinion meant to “bring into contempt or disrepute” the President or any other “embodiment of the State.”

If the President of The United States can set aside our Constitution as he (or she) wishes, and become judge, jury and executioner over a free American citizen, no matter which party the president represents, then the freedom and liberty of the individual no longer exists in America; America, instead, lives under the yoke absolute tyranny! Étienne de La Boétie writing “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” in 1548 explains how to shed this yoke of tyranny, “Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.” It may be a yoke which rests lightly upon our shoulders with the burden easily borne at this period of time; Nevertheless the yoke of tyranny remains.

The War Prayer
by Mark Twain

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came — next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams — visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!*

Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory –

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher’s side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, “Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!”

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside — which the startled minister did — and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

“I come from the Throne — bearing a message from Almighty God!” The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. “He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import — that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of — except he pause and think.

“God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two — one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this — keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

“You have heard your servant’s prayer — the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it — that part which the pastor — and also you in your hearts — fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory–*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(*After a pause.*)

 ”Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!”
…
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

In the original, briefly, an American space craft crash lands on what appears to be an unknown planet. Some of the Astronauts have perished either in the crash or when their suspended sleep chambers had broken during the journey. The Captain, played by Charlton Hesston, survives along with two or three crew members and with all navigation and data/time equipment destroyed and no way of knowing, the survivors assume they have crashed on a desolate, barren, remote, unknown planet in a distant galaxy. As they begin to discover their surroundings they come upon a society where apes are articulate, intelligent creatures ruling the planet and humans nothing more than dumb animals, incapable of communication, kept a pets, exhibits in cages in a zoo, hunted for sport, experimented on for science. Chimpanzees are the scientists, engineers, mathematicians; gorillas the military, law enforcement; and orangutans the judges, priests, scribes, and Pharisees. A scientist chimpanzee, played by Roddy McDowell, named Cornelius and his scientist wife, Cornelia, come into possession of Hesston, who by now is the only survivor. The holy book of this society says that humans cannot talk and the Pharisees will tolerate no blasphemy so Hesston causes quite a stir. The Chief Pharisee knows the truth and eventually lets Hesston go free but warns him he will not like what he finds. Riding down the beach on a horse with a woman behind him Hesston comes around a bend upon the broken remains of The Statue of Liberty. He realizes he is not on a remote planet, he has returned home, he falls to his knees, bemoans his fate and says, and “…you finally really did it, YOU MANIACS! You blew it all up…” Remember, this was 1968, the greatest fear was that the USA and the USSR would really do it, would really blow the entire planet all up (any who watched, will never forget JFK coming on TV during the Cuban missile crisis, I was watching with my Grandmother, she told me they were about to blow us all up); Just precisely what constituted “acceptable civilian casualties” was an open discussion, not only in military circles, but in everyday conversation; politicians spoke openly of “acceptable losses”.

In Rise it was not a nuclear war which caused this reversal between man and ape, it is a researcher who, seeking a cure for Alzheimer’s, comes upon a vaccine which causes increased mental capacity in the test subjects, in this case chimpanzees. With his father degenerating before his eyes from this terrible disease, he begins to treat his father with the experimental vaccine. The first results are amazing but then his father’s condition begins to degenerate and at an exponentially faster rate than before and he dies. However, because of the initial results, a newer, better vaccine is developed and this time by an airborne delivery system. It achieves the desired result in apes, but the consequences for man are dire which leads to The Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  Watching the commercials, Jayne and I had decided we were going the first Saturday afternoon, I even remarked that I could not wait to see what caused man to finally blow himself up which is what caused my initial disappointment, man did not blow himself up. But this is not 1968, this is 2011, and in this age the fear of man blowing himself up has given way to the fear of rapidly transmitted disease spreading unchecked across the planet. That man, in his feeble attempt to play God, causes his own destruction is a stroke of genius and quite appropriate for today’s world.

Beside, as I said, the makers of this film offered appropriate homage to the original classic. Caesar’s mother (the chimpanzee the movie is centered around) is a research animal named Bright Eyes, the same name Cornelia gives to Hesston when he comes into her and Cornelius’ possession for research. The symbol of the ape society in the 1968 movie comes from the view through the window frame of the window in Caesar’s room in the attic and in Caesar’s early development he is seen putting together a model of The Statue of Liberty with the head in his hand. Listening closely one notices that the keeper in the “ape pound” who survives is named Roddy, a female chimpanzee named Cornelia is taken away for the “improved” drug to be experimented upon, Roddy is seen on the sofa in the lounge of the “ape pound” listening to Charlton Hesston on television in The Ten Commandments. The treatment Caesar receives in the “ape pound” mirrors Hesston’s treatment by the apes when he was in the “human pound”.  A television news feed from the first manned mission to Mars that will take five years is seen eight months into the mission and at a most appropriate time as a man picks up his just delivered newspaper with the headline “Lost in Space”. The chimp handler at the research facility first name is Franklin, the first name of the director of the 1968 film; the father of the researcher and his son who creates the virus last name is Rodman and the writer of the original was Rod Serling whose first name was Rodman.

Without letting the cat out of the bag, because of the neat trick the director plays on the audience at the end (if you have seen it you know what I mean) this is a movie that has to be viewed twice for the full impact to be understood. It is a movie that would have made Rod Serling proud and I cannot wait for it to come out on DVD.

“Pocatello Police are warning people of a suspicious man spotted taking pictures of children at Ammon Park.

Police say parents spotted the man photographing their kids, and when they confronted him the man ran off.

He is described as an older white man with white hair and a beard. He was wearing a western-style button-down shirt and blue jeans and was driving a tan/brown van.

If anyone has information about this man, police would like them to call police dispatch at 234-6100.”

On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 7:31 PM (MDT) LocalNews8.com posted the following update:

“Lt. Paul Manning said the man in question called in the Pocatello Police Department himself, saying he was at the park taking pictures of his grandson. The man also said that he did not run away, but simply walked away from a woman who had gotten very close to him and was yelling at him. Manning said police are no longer worried about the man and he is not suspicious.”

Now I know there are a lot of you “Clovers” (a term borrowed from Eric Peters) out there who are saying, “Rodney, what’s your problem, no harm, no foul; after the safety of the children was possibly at risk!” I reply, “Balderdash, the safety of the children was never at risk, just some idiotic overprotective mother who has absorbed the propaganda of fear perpetuated by the state and the media the state controls; Fear, especially of one’s neighbor, is the tyrant’s preferred tool to abolish liberty and expand the police state.”

America, in 2011, taking pictures is fast becoming a crime. Free individuals are arrested for taking pictures of the armed agents of the state (some refer to them as police) in the performance of their public duties, free individuals are detained for taking pictures of a unique municipal water tower, free individuals are harassed by the sheeple the state has created and in effect, an “All Points Bulletin” issued because the individual was in a public park taking pictures of children. We have become as stupid as Sue in the first “Crocodile Dundee” movie. Mick and Sue are in the “bush” retracing Mick’s steps after being attacked by a croc. Nigel, an Aborigine and a friend of Mick’s, happens by their camp. Sue, being the reporter she is, reaches for her camera to take a picture of Nigel. As she begins to aim the camera Nigel says, “Oh no, you can’t take my picture.” Sue replies, “I’m sorry, you believe it will take your soul away.” Nigel replies, “Nah, you have the lens cap on.” As Daddy used to say, “I’ll bet you a dime to a doughnut” that these same parents, so concerned about their children, have sat idly by while Congress keeps extending the real threat to their children’s safety and future liberty, the PATRIOT Act and the police state it has spawned. There is nothing new under the sun, and no more of it, only modern technology that makes us aware of perverted behavior we never knew of before and which the state uses to feed our fear and expand tyranny. Irrational rear, perpetuated by the state and it’s controlled media is ringing the death knell of liberty. I have experienced this first hand, right here in “River City” at Mellor Park, sitting on a bench watching my grandchildren play. I was never confronted, but I have seen young mothers looking at this long-haired gray headed old as I sat peacefully doing nothing but watch children at play.

Since the beginning of time, old men have always loved to sit and watch children at play. Why? Because somewhere along the line women grow up and become responsible adults but men, even the most successful of us, only become older boys (the old saying “The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys!” is absolutely true). Old men love to sit and watch children at play because it takes their mind back to a time when they too could play with wanton abandon. When free individuals simply sitting and watching, sitting and taking pictures, disturbing no one and threatening no one; When old men can no longer sit to simply watch children play; Patrick Henry’s words to come to mind, “Fear is the passion of slaves.”