Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'government'.
-
6 minute read https://www.givehim15.com/post/may-3-2022 May 3, 2022 The “Separation of Church and State” Myth I have decided that one more post regarding government is necessary. We did several posts a week ago on the subject; however, I believe “the separation of church and state” needs to be addressed. In last week’s teachings, we stressed that God honors the concept of government. More than simply believing in it, however, He tells us in Isaiah 33:22 that He IS government: Lawgiver, Judge, and King. Our government, with its three branches - Legislative, Judicial, and Executive - was formed after this pattern. He, as the Author of government, desires to funnel His wisdom, will, and ways into the earth’s realm through a righteous government. I have often said, “Although God initiated, endorsed, and therefore blesses the concept of government, He despises the ‘political spirit.’” The political spirit is to government what a religious spirit is to relationship with God. Both are perversions of the truth. They are evil. These spirits partnered to crucify Jesus. In America, the political spirit has so defiled our government that deception, a lust for control and power, antichrist ideals/agendas, and greed control much of Washington, D.C. This rebellion and rejection of God eventually opens the door to depravity, such as killing babies up to a month old, which some are now trying to make legal. One of the most important statements in America’s founding documents is found in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This Amendment was written to keep our nation from favoring any denomination or religious group, and from forming a state Church or religion, as had occurred in England. The king was the overseer of the Church of England and the combined power of church and state in that situation was very oppressive to many people. The First Amendment also ensured individuals could relate to God as they desired without the intrusion of government. It was meant to keep government control out of the church, not keep God or His influence out of government. Our founders wanted God’s influence in our government. The rotunda of the Capitol was actually used for church services every Sunday morning for decades. Presidents, including Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, and others regularly attended. Jefferson actually did so just two days after penning his now-famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he used the phrase “wall of separation between church and state.” This statement, “a wall of separation between church and state,” does not exist in the First Amendment - or any other place - in the Constitution. Jefferson stated it in a letter to answer a question posed to him by the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, CT, who were concerned about the government forming a state religion. Here is what Jefferson, one of the authors of the U. S. Constitution, actually said in this response dated October 17, 1801: “Gentlemen - Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” (1) David Barton, considered an expert on the intent of our nation’s Founders, said this: “Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination.” (2) Over time, the overall effect of the false doctrine regarding “The Separation of Church and State” concluded that neither the church nor God should have any influence in the American government. The true meaning, government not controlling or favoring certain religious groups, has been largely ignored. Consider the following examples: The Little Sisters of the Poor won a Supreme Court case on July 8, 2020, after a 10-year-long battle regarding the Obamacare mandate requiring them to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. This is against their religious beliefs. While “churches” were exempt from the mandate, other religious organizations were not. President Trump’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” made all religious organizations exempt, as they should be. It took an Executive Order to finally get this basic First Amendment right granted to Little Sisters of the Poor. COVID-19 saw the shutdown of almost all businesses and places of worship. On re-opening, some states tried to keep churches and synagogues locked down while opening bars, casinos, malls, and the like. This made no sense and was obvious discrimination against Christians and Jews. Churches went on the offense. Some chose civil disobedience, opening anyway, while complying with the same laws similar businesses were following. They also sued their states and cities. Pastor Mike McClure and Apostle Che Ahn, both in California, were on the frontlines of that battle. Pastor McClure was fined millions of dollars for keeping his church open. He spearheaded a case representing the Christians of Santa Clara County against the state of California and the County. Che Ahn’s case for Harvest Rock Church was returned by SCOTUS back to the lower court decision, giving them a victory. On 2/6/21, the Supreme Court ruled in McClure’s favor. (Click here to read FRC’s report on the case.) “Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group, Camp Constitution, by refusing to fly a flag bearing the image of a cross at City Hall as part of a program that let private groups use the flagpole while holding events in the plaza below, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday (voting 9-0)…The dispute arose over Boston's practice of allowing private groups to hold flag-raising events using one of three flagpoles on the plaza in front of City Hall. From 2005 to 2017, Boston approved all 284 applications it received before rebuffing Camp Constitution. The vast majority of flags were those of foreign countries, but also included one commemorating LGBT Pride in Boston…The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken an expansive view of religious rights and has been increasingly receptive to arguments that governments are acting with hostility toward religion.”(3) We give God thanks for this! We currently have an administration that is anti-Christian. Therefore, we will continue to see boldness in trying to advance the restrictions of religious freedom during their tenure. We must stand strongly and bravely against those attempts. We will pray, we will act, and we will never allow any tyrannical government to restrict our freedom to worship as we believe is right. This is not only a political or philosophical battle; it is a spiritual battle. We will fight and we will win. “For the Lord your God is going with you! He will fight for you against your enemies, and He will give you victory!” (Deuteronomy 20:4 NLT) Pray with me: Lord, we exalt Your holy name and proclaim that YOU are God over America. This reality is something no government entity can ever take away from us. Some people in their foolishness, are trying to convince the world there is no God, or that You are irrelevant. Whether because they believe the Church is unimportant, or see us as a threat, they are actively trying to silence us. Our courts have been attempting to interpret our Constitution in progressive, humanistic ways for over 50 years. We have sat back in compliance giving the enemy a foothold. Now we must reverse the damage. Help us to watch carefully and teach us to intercede with wisdom and understanding. Also, give us skill and sound ideas as we take action. We appeal to You, Lord. We ask You to grace us with a holy boldness to push back against the darkness. We will not allow the government to say we can’t have a voice in governmental matters, nor will we comply with laws and judicial decisions that are contrary to Your word and ways. We want Your influence in every aspect of government, so that we and our offspring may live in peace and prosperity. Be glorified in us, Father, and may this nation glorify You. We welcome You into every area of our lives, including government. We pray this in Christ’s name. Amen. Today’s decree: We decree that God is restoring righteous, God-honoring government in America..! ********************* Click on the link below to watch the full video. __________________________________________ 1 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/danburybaptists 2 https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/ 3 https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/supreme-court-christians-flag-boston/2022/05/02/id/1068073/?ns_mail_uid=4cc2884a-8368-4c38-b7a3-88795ee7bbb7&ns_mail_job=DM329622_05022022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102sslrji
-
- 1
-
- government
- rights
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
5 min read https://www.givehim15.com/post/april-29-2022 April 29, 2022 What Does God Say about Christians and Politics (part 4) In the final post of this short series regarding government, I want to mention what is a confusing passage to many, Romans 13:1-5: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” (Romans 13:1-5; NASB) This passage is often used to convince Christians they are not supposed to criticize people in government, that they must obey government unconditionally, and that everyone in a position of governmental authority was put in that position by God. That is not what the passage is saying. Let’s first look at the contention regarding everyone in government being placed there by God. This belief is built around the doctrine of God‘s sovereignty. He is sovereign, of course. The problem, however, comes from mis-defining what sovereignty means. It does not mean “to be in control of everything.” (I shared a post [October 11, 2021] on this subject which you can see here.) The word “sovereignty” means “all reign or authority.” God is sovereign, or has all authority, but He is not responsible for evil. He certainly is not in favor of wicked people in government and did not place them there. To contend that God puts people like Hitler in their position of power for some unknown reason, is an insult to God’s character. God confirmed that He doesn’t set up evil governments in Hosea 8:4, “They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval." This could not be clearer. Actually, God’s judgment of wicked rulers and removal of them in scripture is overwhelmingly obvious. At times He raised up leaders to overthrow evil governments, such as Moses, Ehud, Jephthah, Samson and Deborah. Hebrews 11:32-34 says, “For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises... became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.” Obviously, not all who are in positions of government were placed there by God. So what does this passage in Romans 13 mean? Paul was simply instructing believers in Rome to respect the institution God had raised up: government. When combining this passage with the remainder of Scripture, which we must always do, it becomes clear that our first responsibility is to obey God. When laws and commands of government contradict His laws, we do not obey them. Consider the following passage: “When they had brought them (Peter and the apostles), they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, saying, ‘We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.’ But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’” (Acts 5:27-29; NASB) David Howard, of Foxhole Ministry, states, “Christians are to follow what is lawful under God and to be subject to the authorities that God has established. When it comes to worldly institutions or governments, we submit so far as is lawful under God…God created the righteous concept of the institution of government and directed the people [under Moses] to create a representative government to honor God's laws and prevent disorder and anarchy. The caution is that Christians ‘…must (always) obey God rather than men.’ Therefore what is legal under man is not always lawful under God. Today, what is unlawful under God in America are abortion, *** marriage, political corruption, pornography, restricted prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments. Nothing made legal by government, which is unlawful under God, should Christians condone, hide or fail to expose. We are not silent, apathetic, struck down or delayed in our representation of Christ as ambassadors to the world. This is our appointed time to be the light and salt that speaks the word of God into the world. We have no fellowship with darkness, but we shrewdly expose it. (Paraphrased from Ephesians 5:11) We expose it by putting on the full armor of God to be Christ’s Ambassadors into the world so we may speak boldly, as we ought to speak. (Ephesians 6:10-20)”(1) History is filled with examples of this passage in Romans 13 being used inappropriately to silence good people, including Christians. Consider the following examples: “In July 1933, during Hitler’s first summer in power, a young German pastor named Joachim Hossenfelder preached a sermon in the towering Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church, Berlin’s most important church. He used the words of Romans 13 to remind worshippers of the importance of obedience to those in authority. The church was festooned with Nazi banners and … flags, its pews packed with the Nazi Party faithful — including men in the brown shirts of the [Stormtroopers], the Nazis’ paramilitary movement.”(2) “Those upholding the Fugitive Slave Law in the 1840s and 1850s insisted that escaped slaves be returned to their masters, based on Romans 13. “Frederick Douglass, escaped slave and renowned orator during the Civil War once said, ‘I appear this evening as a thief and a robber. I stole this head, these limbs, this body from my master, and ran off with them.’”(3) Wow! “Beloved, I hope that as Christians we can all agree that the life of Jesus is one of freedom in Christ, not servitude to human powers. I hope we as Americans can agree that no particular iteration of our government is such a bearer of God’s will that its actions cannot be questioned. When an official of any government uses Romans 13 in this way, they claim divine authority in a way that is incompatible with both our freedom in Christ and the proper functioning of democracy. When this interpretation goes unchallenged, human tragedy always follows.”(4) Speak up, fellow believers, speak up. Pray with me: Father, our enemy will use anything possible to create passivity in the church, including our theology. We ask for You to bring understanding to us regarding any and every belief we have that creates passivity or complacency. Awaken the church to our high calling and privilege of partnering with You on earth, to accomplish good and stop evil. Through our prayers, decrees, and voices, we stand against evil in our nation. We oppose that which would try to remove You from our America’s government, education and public life. We bind the coordinated efforts of hell to bring down this nation. We ask You to continue shifting - and create an even greater shift - in our nation by continuing to expose ungodliness and impure motives. Arise, and see Your enemies scatter! And we remember to pray for our brothers and sisters around the world. We continue to ask for an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine. We ask You to work this for the good of revival and righteousness. We ask You to end the evil reign of Putin and free the people of Russia from the oppression there. We pray for worldwide revival in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, South America, Central America, and every island of the sea. We ask all of this in Christ’s name. Amen. Our decree: We decree that Jesus Christ is Lord over all other governments. **************************** Click on the link below to watch the full video. ______________________________ https://foxholeministry.com/index.php/blog/truth-blog/part-ii-romans-13-1-7-is-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-scriptures-2-2 https://roodscreen.org/why-we-as-christians-cannot-ignore-the-misuse-of-romans-13-ee7631d5b440 Ibid. Ibid.
-
- 1
-
- government
- dutch sheets
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
5 min read https://www.givehim15.com/post/april-27-2022 April 27, 2022 What Does God Say about Christians and Politics (part 2) I was disheartened one day when I heard Holy Spirit clearly tell me He was going to teach me about government. This was a time in my life that I still had a distaste for government and knew very little about it. I could not have cared less about the process. My first thought was, “How boring! What have I done to deserve this punishment?” God’s next statement set me on my heels, “Because I AM government,” He said. He then quoted Isaiah 33:22 to me, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” I was so glad I didn’t tell God what I was thinking - in my mind I had just called Him boring!!! Though I’m about to share some theology and Hebrew words - it is a benefit to pastors and teachers who read the posts - don’t get bogged down in the theology and details. That part won’t take long. Here is where I’m headed with it: God IS government, He DELEGATES a portion of His government, and satan wants to USURP His government! Notice, the verse Holy Spirit quoted to me (Isaiah 33:22) does not say God simply “endorses” laws, judges and kings (i.e. government); it says He IS these things. As I stated yesterday, the Bible uses the word “Lord” 7946 times, most of them referring to Yahweh. My dictionary said “Lord” means “a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.” In other words, it includes government. This means that almost 8000 times the Bible refers to God as our governmental Head! The entirety of Scripture is about government! Think about it: one of the primary themes of the Bible is, “Who will rule the earth?” In the first chapter God gets right to the point: “I want family, and My family will ‘rule’ the earth (their home) for Me (Genesis 1:26-28). They will be the extension and expression of My Kingdom’s government there. This is how I will release My influence, My righteous Kingdom ideals and ways, into the earth.” That is true, and it is profound. The Hebrew word for “dominion” and “rule” in this Genesis passage makes clear that the Creator was delegating to Adam and Eve this responsibility. Radah means “to rule over, to govern.” Psalm 8:3, referring to this passage in Genesis, uses another word, mashal, which also means “rule or govern.” God would govern the earth through humans. But satan wanted this dominion. He had attempted a coup in Heaven and failed. Banished to earth, his thinking now was, If I can’t rule over God’s entire Kingdom, I’ll at least govern earth. And by chapter 3, he had succeeded in deceiving Adam and Eve, who rebelled from God’s authority and government. Satan took their authority. Yahweh lost His family and they lost their governmental authority over the earth. Satan now had it. Christ was sent to earth as the second Adam to reclaim both the family AND their governing authority. The story of the Bible is the clash of two kingdoms! From cover to cover God’s Word is about family and government! If I was satan, one of my most important strategies would be to alienate God’s family, His representatives and ambassadors from government. I’d tell them it’s bad, evil, unspiritual. Let ‘em love God, be His “sheep,” even His family. But 1) don’t let them know they’re His government here on earth (Christ’s Ekklesia), and 2) keep them from involving themselves in any and all government. If I could succeed in this, God’s conduit for releasing His authority on the earth would be rendered ineffective. Throughout the Scriptures, we can see God’s plan of ruling the earth through people. Consider Abraham, of whom it was said: “Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (Genesis 18:18-19). God determined to bless the entire earth through Abraham. To do so, however, He needed Abraham to command and teach His ways, releasing His justice and judgments into the earth. God also released His authority, His government, through Moses, Joshua, then through prophets and Judges. He also did so through Kings. Yahweh’s determined plan to release His authority through humans on earth was so consequential that at times entire nations were judged or blessed based on the actions of their government leaders. Think about it, entire groups of people were either cursed or blessed based on the actions of a government leader. More suffering on earth has taken place because of the actions of government leaders than for any other reason. Millions of people have been killed and persecuted because of government leaders. Poverty has overtaken nations because of government leaders. Cultures and people groups have actually been eradicated because of the actions of government leaders. Sixty million babies in America have been murdered since 1973 because of the actions of government leaders. And yet, the church embraces a belief that we who represent God’s will and plans on earth should stay out of this arena! We avoid government. When we gather as the church we believe we shouldn’t talk about it. The church feels we should say and do nothing to place into positions of authority those who know and honor God. This is ludicrous, and the ramifications are staggering. The thief, who came to steal, kill and destroy, is left in charge. We in America have been blessed with one of the greatest privileges in the history of nations: choosing our own government. Yet with this comes incredible responsibility. To forfeit this blessing is more than a waste; it is shirking our God-given responsibility of governing the earth for Him. When the right people are leading our nation, America becomes the greatest force for peace, safety and provision in all the world! We were one of the keys to saving the earth in its two world wars. We were the force that stopped communism around the world. We have become the leading force in health and medicine. God, and the world, must have a strong America. In order for there to be a strong America, however, there must be a strong and righteous government. The church must be freed from the deception causing us to withdraw from this process, and become involved at every level of government. We must. In tomorrow’s post we will talk about politics and the political spirit, part of the process satan has used to keep many in the church aloof from government. But it doesn’t have to. God is governmental, but He is NOT political. Pray with me: Father, our prayer today is that You teach us Your ways. We must understand Your plans and intentions for us, and for the earth. Ignorance causes us to forfeit so much. May the spirit of wisdom and revelation be taken to a higher level in the church. Teach us how to truly function as Christ’s Ekklesia. Teach we Americans, especially the American church, how to steward the incredible privilege of choosing our own government. Forgive us for relinquishing this right and thereby allowing evil to rule over us. Continue to help us see our government transformed into a God-honoring, life-honoring, Bible-honoring government once again. We have allowed evil into our government, but in Your mercy give us a quick turnaround. May the elections in November remove many who oppose Your ways, and see them replaced with those who honor You. Thank You for the awakening that is occurring in our nation. Let this awakening be both spiritual and civil, we pray. And we ask these things in Christ’s name. Amen. Our decree: We decree that the greatest shift that has ever occurred in an American election will take place this November. ************************ Click on the link below to watch the full video.
-
- 1
-
- government
- dutch sheets
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
6 min read https://www.givehim15.com/post/april-26-2022 April 26, 2022 What Does the Bible Say about Christians and Politics Satan is the master of deception. He is crafty, wily. This is actually the first thing spoken about him in scripture. “Now the serpent was more crafty (arowm) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made” (Genesis 3:1.) Based on the Law of First Mention, that makes this truth the most important thing God wants us to know about satan. Arowm means “shrewd, wily, cunning, crafty, or sly,” usually in a bad sense. Its root word, aram, means to be “slick, bare, or smooth.” We still use the concept today when we say of one who is shrewdly deceitful, they are “slick,” or “a smooth operator.” Satan is much more dangerous to us as the wily serpent than he is as the roaring lion. Satan is crafty, a master deceiver and distorter of truth. He is the father of lies. This is how he rules. Though not the subject of this teaching, the concept of ekklesia is a prime example. The devil’s strategy centuries ago was to influence King James to translate this word as “church” and define it as a building or worship service. King James did not like the true meaning of ekklesia due to its governmental concept. Because this demonic deception worked, for centuries the body of Christ was blinded to the fact that we are God’s legislative, governing body on earth, not just Christ’s bride. In this context, satan did not overpower us; he deceived us and thereby gained influence. Another area where satan has used his crafty, deceptive abilities, and the subject I want to discuss in the next couple of posts, is in the area of government and politics. My desire is to instruct, enlighten, strengthen good information and understanding, correct some wrong paradigms, and arm you with truth as you speak to others. The title, Lord, which certainly refers to God’s rule or government, is used 7946 times in Scripture. The first chapter of the Bible mentions the Lord delegating His governmental authority over the earth to human beings…right next to the family mandate, “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:26-28). That is placing it at a pretty high level of importance! When He gave Adam dominion, the word in Hebrew is mashal, which means government or management. God told Adam, “You will govern, manage, or rule the earth for me.” Actually, the entire Bible is about who is going to rule the earth. And yet, the subject is taboo to most Christian leaders. This is almost shocking. One pastor I know, during the 2020 election controversy, told his congregation, “We are not going to get involved in this one way or the other.” And that included, by the way, praying regarding the election process. While conversing several years ago with another influential pastor of a large, charismatic church, I asked him if he taught his congregation about the necessity of voting based on biblical ideals and principles. His response to me was, “Why would I defile what God is doing in our church by discussing something as evil as politics?” Both of these sincere men are pro-life, pro-biblical marriage (between one man and one woman), and would vehemently oppose the movement to teach kindergartners that they can choose to be a gender other than what God made them. These, of course, are all biblical issues, critical to the moral fabric of individuals and nations. And to a great extent, they are determined through government legislation, yet these leaders felt the church was no place to discuss them, make a stand, or even pray regarding them. By saying we will not discuss government and moral issues in a church service, is this not the equivalent of saying some parts of the Bible are off-limits in our services? By refusing to pray for elections, asking God to give us righteous leaders and refusing to speak about these issues, are we not separating ourselves from part of who God is? He IS government! (Isaiah 33:22) (I will talk more about this subject tomorrow.) The following developments have taken place thus far under the Biden administration: They have created the worst border situation in our history. Millions of undocumented people are flowing into our nation; people are being trafficked by the hundreds, if not thousands; hundreds of children are coming into our nation without parents; terrorists are no doubt entering; and the drug problem is at an unprecedented level. Our reckless withdrawal from Afghanistan has resulted in one of the worst debacles in our history. We left hundreds, if not thousands, of people behind to be slaughtered by the Taliban, wasted 20 years of effort, gave $70-$80 billion worth of weapons to the Taliban, and allowed them to re-establish a stronghold for terrorism. We were energy independent, but now are dependent on our enemies for oil. Gas prices are skyrocketing and there is no end in sight. By buying their oil, we are arming our enemies with billions of dollars to use against us. None of this makes any sense whatsoever. The authoritarian COVID-19 mandates have been ridiculous beyond comprehension. They have destroyed lives, livelihoods, and people's health, including the cognitive development of our children. Crime has surged, and murder rates are off the charts. Our government’s politics against police agencies have compounded this significantly. We now have record inflation. Many experts are saying we have not come close to where this will ultimately end. Frankly, their spending is out of control by trillions of dollars, and our economy is hanging by a thread. They have declared war on parents, who do not want their children taught transgenderism, a new and revised history of America, and woke-ism. The Biden administration threatened these parents and called them terrorists. (1) I point out these things not to attack President Biden. I point them out to emphasize the importance of government. It is not peripheral; it is not extra-biblical. It is critical, and it is spiritual. We, the church must shift in our thinking. Here are some readily accepted concepts by many in the body of Christ regarding government, which I will address in tomorrow’s post, and perhaps subsequent posts, as well: Politics and government are the same thing. Politics and government are corrupt, even evil, therefore we should stay away from them as much as possible. Politics and government are divisive. Since they are evil and divisive, politics and government have no place in the church or our Christian gatherings/services. Even if a Christian does become involved in politics/government, she or he should leave this out of church settings. It is illegal to talk about politics or government in church. A church could lose its tax-exempt status by doing so. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that with these philosophies and beliefs, we will inevitably hand over control of much of the earth to unbelievers. At that point, our only hope for righteous laws and principles being legislated is that God will sovereignly overrule those who don’t agree with Him. We sit back, hoping and praying that He will overthrow evil and give us righteous laws, in spite of our lack of involvement. He will not. Let’s fix this. Let’s see what God says about government, and through the tools Holy Spirit has given us, turn this nation around! Pray with me: Father, You are doing much in this season of time to equip Your people. Obviously, this involves paradigm shifts in what we believe and in the way we approach portions of our lives. None of us are perfect in our theology and understanding of Your ways. We humbly acknowledge this and ask You to increase our knowledge and revelation. Teach us Your ways regarding government. Show us how to involve You in our lives, families, cities, and nations through authority, through government. As we learn Your ways, the crafty serpent will not be able to take advantage of us. Many are so often destroyed through a lack of knowledge. Help us to correct this in the incredibly important area of government. We want righteous laws and statutes governing our lives and nation. We believe You can help us turn around this country and correct this horrible mess we have made. We ask You for this, and all of these things, in Jesus’ name. Amen. Our decree: We decree that revelation is coming to the body of Christ regarding her role in government. ************************* Click on the link below to watch the full video. _____________________________________ Adapted from The Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/02/28/7-major-failures-of-the-biden-presidency/
-
- 1
-
- dutch sheets
- give him 15
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-iraq-iranian-power.html Middle East Middle East|Iran Dominates in Iraq After U.S. ‘Handed the Country Over’ Tehran's Turn Iran Dominates in Iraq After U.S. ‘Handed the Country Over’ By Tim Arango July 15, 2017 Image Members of the Popular Mobilization Forces, a mostly Shiite militia group, at their post at the Iraqi border with Syria.Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times BAGHDAD — Walk into almost any market in Iraq and the shelves are filled with goods from Iran — milk, yogurt, chicken. Turn on the television and channel after channel broadcasts programs sympathetic to Iran. A new building goes up? It is likely that the cement and bricks came from Iran. And when bored young Iraqi men take pills to get high, the illicit drugs are likely to have been smuggled across the porous Iranian border. And that’s not even the half of it. Across the country, Iranian-sponsored militias are hard at work establishing a corridor to move men and guns to proxy forces in Syria and Lebanon. And in the halls of power in Baghdad, even the most senior Iraqi cabinet officials have been blessed, or bounced out, by Iran’s leadership. When the United States invaded Iraq 14 years ago to topple Saddam Hussein, it saw Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East, and vast amounts of blood and treasure — about 4,500 American lives lost, more than $1 trillion spent — were poured into the cause. From Day 1, Iran saw something else: a chance to make a client state of Iraq, a former enemy against which it fought a war in the 1980s so brutal, with chemical weapons and trench warfare, that historians look to World War I for analogies. If it succeeded, Iraq would never again pose a threat, and it could serve as a jumping-off point to spread Iranian influence around the region. In that contest, Iran won, and the United States lost. Over the past three years, Americans have focused on the battle against the Islamic State in Iraq, returning more than 5,000 troops to the country and helping to force the militants out of Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul. But Iran never lost sight of its mission: to dominate its neighbor so thoroughly that Iraq could never again endanger it militarily, and to use the country to effectively control a corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean. “Iranian influence is dominant,” said Hoshyar Zebari, who was ousted last year as finance minister because, he said, Iran distrusted his links to the United States. “It is paramount.” The country’s dominance over Iraq has heightened sectarian tensions around the region, with Sunni states, and American allies, like Saudi Arabia mobilizing to oppose Iranian expansionism. But Iraq is only part of Iran’s expansion project; it has also used soft and hard power to extend its influence in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, and throughout the region. Iran is a Shiite state, and Iraq, a Shiite majority country, was ruled by an elite Sunni minority before the American invasion. The roots of the schism between Sunnis and Shiites, going back almost 1,400 years, lie in differences over the rightful leaders of Islam after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. But these days, it is about geopolitics as much as religion, with the divide expressed by different states that are adversaries, led by Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other. Iran’s influence in Iraq is not just ascendant, but diverse, projecting into military, political, economic and cultural affairs. At some border posts in the south, Iraqi sovereignty is an afterthought. Busloads of young militia recruits cross into Iran without so much as a document check. They receive military training and are then flown to Syria, where they fight under the command of Iranian officers in defense of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. Passing in the other direction, truck drivers pump Iranian products — food, household goods, illicit drugs — into what has become a vital and captive market. Iran tips the scales to its favor in every area of commerce. In the city of Najaf, it even picks up the trash, after the provincial council there awarded a municipal contract to a private Iranian company. One member of the council, Zuhair al-Jibouri, resorted to a now-common Iraqi aphorism: “We import apples from Iran so we can give them away to Iranian pilgrims.” Politically, Iran has a large number of allies in Iraq’s Parliament who can help secure its goals. And its influence over the choice of interior minister, through a militia and political group the Iranians built up in the 1980s to oppose Mr. Hussein, has given it substantial control over that ministry and the federal police. Perhaps most crucial, Parliament passed a law last year that effectively made the constellation of Shiite militias a permanent fixture of Iraq’s security forces. This ensures Iraqi funding for the groups while effectively maintaining Iran’s control over some of the most powerful units. Now, with new parliamentary elections on the horizon, Shiite militias have begun organizing themselves politically for a contest that could secure even more dominance for Iran over Iraq’s political system. To gain advantage on the airwaves, new television channels set up with Iranian money and linked to Shiite militias broadcast news coverage portraying Iran as Iraq’s protector and the United States as a devious interloper. Partly in an effort to contain Iran, the United States has indicated that it will keep troops behind in Iraq after the battle against the Islamic State. American diplomats have worked to emphasize the government security forces’ role in the fighting, and to shore up a prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, who has seemed more open to the United States than to Iran. But after the United States’ abrupt withdrawal of troops in 2011, American constancy is still in question here — a broad failure of American foreign policy, with responsibility shared across three administrations. Iran has been playing a deeper game, parlaying extensive religious ties with Iraq’s Shiite majority and a much wider network of local allies, as it makes the case that it is Iraq’s only reliable defender. A Road to the Sea Iran’s great project in eastern Iraq may not look like much: a 15-mile stretch of dusty road, mostly gravel, through desert and scrub near the border in Diyala Province. But it is an important new leg of Iran’s path through Iraq to Syria, and what it carries — Shiite militiamen, Iranian delegations, trade goods and military supplies — is its most valuable feature. It is a piece of what analysts and Iranian officials say is Iran’s most pressing ambition: to exploit the chaos of the region to project influence across Iraq and beyond. Eventually, analysts say, Iran could use the corridor, established on the ground through militias under its control, to ship weapons and supplies to proxies in Syria, where Iran is an important backer of Mr. Assad, and to Lebanon and its ally Hezbollah. At the border to the east is a new crossing built and secured by Iran. Like the relationship between the two countries, it is lopsided. The checkpoint’s daily traffic includes up to 200 Iranian trucks, carrying fruit and yogurt, concrete and bricks, into Iraq. In the offices of Iraqi border guards, the candies and soda offered to guests come from Iran. No loaded trucks go the other way. “Iraq doesn’t have anything to offer Iran,” Vahid Gachi, the Iranian official in charge of the crossing, said in an interview in his office, as lines of tractor-trailers poured into Iraq. “Except for oil, Iraq relies on Iran for everything.” The border post is also a critical transit point for Iran’s military leaders to send weapons and other supplies to proxies fighting the Islamic State in Iraq. After the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh, swept across Diyala and neighboring areas in 2014, Iran made clearing the province, a diverse area of Sunnis and Shiites, a priority. It marshaled a huge force of Shiite militias, many trained in Iran and advised on the ground by Iranian officials. After a quick victory, Iranians and their militia allies set about securing their next interests here: marginalizing the province’s Sunni minority and securing a path to Syria. Iran has fought aggressively to keep its ally Mr. Assad in power in order to retain land access to its most important spinoff in the region, Hezbollah, the military and political force that dominates Lebanon and threatens Israel. A word from Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s powerful spymaster, sent an army of local Iraqi contractors scrambling, lining up trucks and bulldozers to help build the road, free of charge. Militiamen loyal to Iran were ordered to secure the site. Uday al-Khadran, the Shiite mayor of Khalis District in Diyala, is a member of the Badr Organization, an Iraqi political party and militia established by Tehran in the 1980s to fight against Mr. Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. On an afternoon earlier this year, he spread a map across his desk and proudly discussed how he helped build the road, which he said was ordered by General Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, the branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps responsible for foreign operations. General Suleimani secretly directed Iran’s policy in Iraq after the American invasion in 2003, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers in attacks carried out by militias under his control. “I love Qassim Suleimani more than my children,” he said. Mr. Khadran said the general’s new road would eventually be a shortcut for religious pilgrims from Iran to reach Samarra, Iraq, the location of an important shrine. But he also acknowledged the route’s greater strategic significance as part of a corridor secured by Iranian proxies that extends across central and northern Iraq. The connecting series of roads skirts the western city of Mosul and stretches on to Tal Afar, an Islamic State-controlled city where Iranian-backed militias and Iranian advisers have set up a base at an airstrip on the outskirts. “Diyala is the passage to Syria and Lebanon, and this is very important to Iran,” said Ali al-Daini, the Sunni chairman of the provincial council there. Closer to Syria, Iranian-allied militias moved west of Mosul as the battle against the Islamic State unfolded there in recent months. The militias captured the town of Baaj, and then proceeded to the Syrian border, putting Iran on the cusp of completing its corridor. Back east, in Diyala, Mr. Daini said he had been powerless to halt what he described as Iran’s dominance in the province. When Mr. Daini goes to work, he said, he has to walk by posters of Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, outside the council building. Iran’s militias in the province have been accused of widespread sectarian cleansing, pushing Sunnis from their homes to establish Shiite dominance and create a buffer zone on its border. The Islamic State was beaten in Diyala more than two years ago, but thousands of Sunni families still fill squalid camps, unable to return home. Now, Diyala has become a showcase for how Iran views Shiite ascendancy as critical to its geopolitical goals. “Iran is smarter than America,” said Nijat al-Taie, a Sunni member of the provincial council and an outspoken critic of Iran, which she calls the instigator of several assassination attempts against her. “They achieved their goals on the ground. America didn’t protect Iraq. They just toppled the regime and handed the country over to Iran.” The Business of Influence The lives of General Suleimani and other senior leaders in Tehran were shaped by the prolonged war with Iraq in the 1980s. The conflict left hundreds of thousands dead on both sides, and General Suleimani spent much of the war at the front, swiftly rising in rank as so many officers were killed. “The Iran-Iraq war was the formative experience for all of Iran’s leaders,” said Ali Vaez, an Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution organization. “From Suleimani all the way down. It was their ‘never again’ moment.” A border dispute over the Shatt al Arab waterway that was a factor in the hostilities has still not been resolved, and the legacy of the war’s brutality has influenced the Iranian government ever since, from its pursuit of nuclear weapons to its policy in Iraq. “This is a permanent scar in their mind,” said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a lawmaker and former national security adviser. “They are obsessed with Baathism, Saddam and the Iran-Iraq war.” More than anything else, analysts say, it is the scarring legacy of that war that has driven Iranian ambitions to dominate Iraq. Particularly in southern Iraq, where the population is mostly Shiite, signs of Iranian influence are everywhere. Iranian-backed militias are the defenders of the Shiite shrines in the cities of Najaf and Karbala that drive trade and tourism. In local councils, Iranian-backed political parties have solid majorities, and campaign materials stress relationships with Shiite saints and Iranian clerics. If the Iraqi government were stronger, said Mustaq al-Abady, a businessman from just outside Najaf, “then maybe we could open our factories instead of going to Iran.” He said his warehouse was crowded with Iranian imports because his government had done nothing to promote a private sector, police its borders or enforce customs duties. Raad Fadhil al-Alwani, a merchant in Hilla, another southern city, imports cleaning supplies and floor tiles from Iran. He slaps “Made in Iraq” labels in Arabic on bottles of detergent, but the reality is that he owns a factory in Iran because labor is cheaper there. “I feel like I am destroying the economy of Iraq,” he said. But he insists that Iraqi politicians, by deferring to Iranian pressure and refusing to support local industry, have made it hard to do anything else. Najaf attracts millions of Iranian pilgrims each year visiting the golden-domed shrine of Imam Ali, the first Shiite imam. Iranian construction workers — many of whom are viewed as Iranian spies by Iraqi officials — have also flocked to the city to renovate the shrine and build hotels. In Babil Province, according to local officials, militia leaders have taken over a government project to set up security cameras along strategic roads. The project had been granted to a Chinese company before the militias intervened, and now the army and the local police have been sidelined from it, said Muqdad Omran, an Iraqi Army captain in the area. Iran’s pre-eminence in the Iraqi south has not come without resentment. Iraqi Shiites share a faith with Iran, but they also hold close their other identities as Iraqis and Arabs. “Iraq belongs to the Arab League, not to Iran,” said Sheikh Fadhil al-Bidayri, a cleric at the religious seminary in Najaf. “Shiites are a majority in Iraq, but a minority in the world. As long as the Iranian government is controlling the Iraqi government, we don’t have a chance.” In this region where the Islamic State’s military threat has never encroached, Iran’s security concerns are mostly being addressed by economic manipulation, Iraqi officials say. Trade in the south is often financed by Iran with credit, and incentives are offered to Iraqi traders to keep their cash in Iranian banks. Baghdad’s banks play a role, too, as the financial anchors for Iraqi front companies used by Iran to gain access to dollars that can then finance the country’s broader geopolitical aims, said Entifadh Qanbar, a former aide to the Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi, who died in 2015. “It’s very important for the Iranians to maintain corruption in Iraq,” he said. The Militias’ Long Arm For decades, Iran smuggled guns and bomb-making supplies through the vast swamps of southern Iraq. And young men were brought back and forth across the border, from one safe house to another — recruits going to Iran for training, and then back to Iraq to fight. At first the enemy was Mr. Hussein; later, it was the Americans. Today, agents of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards openly recruit fighters in the Shiite-majority cities of southern Iraq. Buses filled with recruits easily pass border posts that officials say are essentially controlled by Iran — through its proxies on the Iraqi side, and its own border guards on the other. While Iran has built up militias to fight against the Islamic State in Iraq, it has also mobilized an army of disaffected young Shiite Iraqi men to fight on its behalf in Syria. Mohammad Kadhim, 31, is one of those foot soldiers for Iran, having served three tours in Syria. The recruiting pitch, he said, is mostly based in faith, to defend Shiite shrines in Syria. But Mr. Kadhim said he and his friends signed up more out of a need for jobs. “I was just looking for money,” he said. “The majority of the youth I met fighting in Syria do it for the money.” He signed up with a Revolutionary Guards recruiter in Najaf, and then was bused through southern Iraq and into Iran, where he underwent military training near Tehran. There, he said, Iranian officers delivered speeches invoking the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, the revered seventh-century Shiite figure whose death at the hands of a powerful Sunni army became the event around which Shiite spirituality would revolve. The same enemies of the Shiites who killed the imam are now in Syria and Iraq, the officers told the men. After traveling to Iran, Mr. Kadhim came home for a break and then was shipped to Syria, where Hezbollah operatives trained him in sniper tactics. Iran’s emphasis on defending the Shiite faith has led some here to conclude that its ultimate goal is to bring about an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq. But there is a persistent sense that it just would not work in Iraq, which has a much larger native Sunni population and tradition, and Iraq’s clerics in Najaf, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the world’s pre-eminent Shiite spiritual leader, oppose the Iranian system. But Iran is taking steps to translate militia power into political power, much as it did with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and militia leaders have begun political organizing before next year’s parliamentary elections. In April, Qais al-Khazali, a Shiite militia leader, delivered a speech to an audience of Iraqi college students, railing against the United States and the nefarious plotting of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Then, a poet who was part of Mr. Khazali’s entourage stood up and began praising General Suleimani. For the students, that was the last straw. Chants of “Iran out! Iran out!” began. Scuffles broke out between students and Mr. Khazali’s bodyguards, who fired their rifles into the air just outside the building. “The thing that really provoked us was the poet,” said Mustafa Kamal, a student at the University of al-Qadisiya in Diwaniya, in southern Iraq, who participated in the protest. Mr. Kamal and his fellow students quickly learned how dangerous it could be to stand up to Iran these days. First, militiamen began threatening to haul them off. Then media outlets linked to the militias went after them, posting their pictures and calling them Baathists and enemies of Shiites. When a mysterious car appeared near Mr. Kamal’s house, his mother panicked that militiamen were coming for her son. Then, finally, Mr. Kamal, a law student, and three of his friends received notices from the school saying they had been suspended for a year. “We thought we had only one hope, the university,” he said. “And then Iran also interfered there.” Mr. Khazali, whose political and militia organization, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, is deeply connected with Iran, has been on a speaking tour on campuses across Iraq as part of an effort to organize political support for next year’s national election. This has raised fears that Iran is trying not only to deepen its influence within Iraqi education, but also to transform militias into outright political and social organizations, much as it did with Hezbollah in Lebanon. “It’s another type of Iranian infiltration and the expansion of Iran’s influence,” said Beriwan Khailany, a lawmaker and member of Parliament’s higher-education committee. “Iran wants to control the youth, and to teach them the Iranian beliefs, through Iraqis who are loyal to Iran.” Political Ascendancy When a group of Qatari falcon hunters, “including members of the royal family, were kidnapped in 2015 while on safari in the southern deserts of Iraq, Qatar called Iran and its militia allies — not the central government in Baghdad. For Mr. Abadi, the prime minister, the episode was an embarrassing demonstration of his government’s weakness at the hands of Iran, whose proxy militia Kataibb Hezbollah was believed to be behind the kidnapping. So when the hostage negotiations were about to end, Mr. Abadi pushed back. Around noon on a day in April, a government jet from Qatar landed in Baghdad, carrying a delegation of diplomats and 500 million euros stuffed into 23 black boxes. The hunters were soon on their way home, but the ransom did not go to the Iranian-backed militiamen who had abducted the Qataris; the cash ended up in a central bank vault in Baghdad. The seizure of the money had been ordered by Mr. Abadi, who was furious at the prospect of militias, and their Iranian and Hezbollah benefactors, being paid so richly right under the Iraqi government’s nose. “Hundreds of millions to armed groups?” Mr. Abadi said in a public rant. “Is this acceptable?” In Iraq, the kidnapping episode was seen as a violation of the country’s sovereignty and emblematic of Iran’s suffocating power over the Iraqi state. In a post on Twitter, Mr. Zebari, the former finance minister, who was previously foreign minister, called the episode a “travesty.” Mr. Zebari knows firsthand the power of Iran over the Iraqi state. Last year, he said, he was ousted as finance minister because Iran perceived him as being too close to the United States. The account was verified by a member of Parliament who was involved in the removal of Mr. Zebari, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Iran. Mr. Zebari, who recounted the events in an interview from his mountainside mansion in northern Iraq, said that when President Barack Obama met with Mr. Abadi last September at the United Nations, the American leader personally lobbied to save Mr. Zebari’s job. Even that was not enough. Mr. Abadi now finds himself in a difficult position. If he makes any move that can be seen as confrontational toward Iran, or as positioning himself closer to the United States, it could place a cloud over his political future. “He had two options: to be with the Americans or with the Iranians,” said Izzat Shahbander, a prominent Iraqi Shiite leader who once lived in exile in Iran while Mr. Hussein was in power. “And he chose to be with the Americans.” Mr. Abadi, who took office in 2014 with the support of both the United States and Iran, has seemed more emboldened to push back against Iranian pressure since President Trump took office. In addition to seizing the ransom money, he has promoted an ambitious project for an American company to secure the highway from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan, which Iran has opposed. He has also begun discussing with the United States the terms of a deal to keep American forces behind after the Islamic State is defeated. Some are seeing an American troop commitment as a chance to revisit the 2011 withdrawal of United States forces that seemingly opened a door for Iran. When American officials in Iraq began the slow wind-down of the military mission there, in 2009, some diplomats in Baghdad were cautiously celebrating one achievement: Iran seemed to be on its heels, its influence in the country waning. “Over the last year, Iran has lost the strategic initiative in Iraq,” one diplomat wrote in a cable, later released by WikiLeaks. But other cables sent warnings back to Washington that were frequently voiced by Iraqi officials they spoke to: that if the Americans left, then Iran would fill the vacuum. Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador in Iraq from 2007 to 2009, said that if the United States left again after the Islamic State was defeated, “it would be effectively just giving the Iranians a free rein.” But many Iraqis say the Iranians already have free rein. And while the Trump administration has indicated that it will pay closer attention to Iraq as a means to counter Iran, the question is whether it is too late. “Iran is not going to sit silent and do nothing,” said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician who has good relationships with both the Iranians and Americans. “They have many means. Frankly, the Americans can’t do anything.”
-
- 7
-
- central bank
- corruption
-
(and 5 more)
Tagged with:
-
Just a quick question.... there is so much talk all over the media as they are pre-programming us to accept, even LOVE the idea of our society going absolutely CASHLESS. As usual, the young folk will just love it because it's soooo convenient and handy to pay for everything with your smart phone....or with an implanted chip in your hand (Mark of the Beast, anyone??). As usual, the young folk will not immediately understand that going cashless will immediately cause everyone to lose their personal power in the matrix-like system, run by technocrats and A.I. No more free trading or bartering...every little transaction noted and stored...great for taxation departments, but potentially also great for controlling people. Talk about current control measures.... Already the globalists at Google have enlisted the aid of the Chinese Government to help them with their best communist advice on how to censor the internet, Facebook and Youtube. People like Alex Jones and Drudge report are being targeted. Wikileaks is being lableled as FAKE NEWS...when really... all Wikileaks contains is FACTS and FILES...they are not news stories... SO HERE WE ARE.....all hoping for an RV...but there is a race going on to stop the use of CASH altogether..... wouldn't it be ironic if an awesome RV happened after all use of cash has been stopped or banned?? There would be nowhere to take your Dinar bills. If cash is still being used in Iraq, I guess you could take a plane and fly to Iraq and cash it THERE. Some feedback, please folks? What do you all reckon about this. Cheers from Downunder!
-
Okay, so why am I posting this? I watched an interview with Doug Casey & Peter Schiff concerning Peter's father Irwin that is serving a very stiff 13 yr prison sentence - That interview led me by interest to watch a video of Doug Casey concerning "HIS" views on voting - I was absolutely in agreement with so much that he said but pushed it aside until I read Ezrapounds thread earlier this morning - We are cursed if we do and cursed if we don't -- It reminds me of an old wise tale "If you get up I'm going to beat you with this stick. If you keep sitting there I"m going to beat you with this stick" ----- so what do you do? I have my answer do you have yours? Doug Casey's Top Five Reasons Not To Vote Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/22/2012 23:42 -0400 Submitted by Doug Casey of Casey Research, L: Doug, we've spoken about presidents. We have a presidential election coming up in the US – an election that could have significant consequences on our investments. But given the views you've already expressed on the Tea Party movement and anarchy, I'm sure you have different ideas. What do you make of the impending circus, and what should a rational man do? Doug: Well, a rational man, which is to say, an ethical man, would almost certainly not vote in this election, or in any other – at least above a local level, where you personally know most of both your neighbors and the candidates. L: Why? Might not an ethical person want to vote the bums out? Doug: He might feel that way, but he'd better get his emotions under control. I've thought about this. So let me give you at least five reasons why no one should vote. The first reason is that voting is an unethical act, in and of itself. That's because the state is pure, institutionalized coercion. If you believe that coercion is an improper way for people to relate to one another, then you shouldn't engage in a process that formalizes and guarantees the use of coercion. L: It's probably worth defining coercion in this context. I know you agree with me that force is ethical in self-defense. A murderer I shoot might feel coerced into accepting a certain amount of hot lead that he did not consent to, but he intended the same, or worse, for me, so the scales are balanced. What you are talking about is forcing innocent, non-consenting others to do things against their wills, like paying taxes that go to pay for military adventures they believe are wrong, etc. Doug: Right. The modern state not only routinely coerces people into doing all sorts of things they don't want to do – often very clearly against their own interests – but it necessarily does so, by its nature. People who want to know more about that should read our conversation on anarchy. This distinction is very important in a society with a government that is no longer limited by a constitution that restrains it from violating individual rights. And when you vote, you participate in, and endorse, this unethical system. L: It's probably also worth clarifying that you're not talking about all voting here. When you are a member of a golfing club and vote on how to use the fees, you and everyone else have consented to the process, so it's not unethical. It's participating in the management of the coercive machinery of the state you object to, not voting in and of itself. Doug: Exactly. As Mao correctly said, "The power of the State comes out of the barrel of a gun." It's not like voting for the leadership of a social club. Unlike a golfing club or something of that nature, the state won't let you opt out. L: Even if you're not harming anyone and just want to be left alone. Doug: Which relates to the second reason: privacy. It compromises your privacy to vote. It gets your name added to a list government busybodies can make use of, like court clerks putting together lists of conscripts for jury duty. Unfortunately, this is not as important a reason as it used to be, because of the great proliferation of lists people are on anyway. Still, while it's true there's less privacy in our world today, in general, the less any government knows about you, the better off you are. This is, of course, why I've successfully refused to complete a census form for the last 40 years. L: [Chuckles] We've talked about the census. Good for you . Doug: It's wise to be a nonperson, as far as the state is concerned, as far as possible. L: Not to digress too much, but some people might react by saying that juries are important. Doug: They are, but it would be a waste of my time to sign up for jury duty, because I would certainly be kicked off any jury. No attorney would ever let me stay on the jury once we got to voir dire, because I would not agree to being a robot that simply voted on the facts and the law as instructed by the judge – I'd want to vote on the morality of the law in question too. I'd be interested in justice, and very few laws today, except for the basic ones on things like murder and theft, have anything to do with justice. If the case related to drug laws, or tax laws, I would almost certainly automatically vote to acquit, regardless of the facts of the case. L: I've thought about it too, because it is important, and I might be willing to serve on a jury. And of course I'd vote my conscience too. But I'd want to be asked, not ordered to do it. I'm not a slave. Doug: My feelings exactly. L: But we should probably get to your third reason for not voting. Doug: That would be because it's a degrading experience. The reason I say that is because registering to vote, and voting itself, usually involves taking productive time out of your day to go stand around in lines in government offices. You have to fill out forms and deal with petty bureaucrats. I know I can find much more enjoyable and productive things to do with my time, and I'm sure anyone reading this can as well. L: And the pettier the bureaucrat, the more unpleasant the interaction tends to be. Doug: I have increasing evidence of that every time I fly. The TSA goons are really coming into their own now, as our own home-grown Gestapo wannabes. L: It's a sad thing… Reason number four? Doug: As P.J. O'Rourke says in a recent book, and as I've always said, voting just encourages them. I'm convinced that most people don't vote for candidates they believe in, but against candidates they fear. But that's not how the guy who wins sees it; the more votes he gets, the more he thinks he's got a mandate to rule – even if all his votes are really just votes against his opponent. Some people justify this, saying it minimizes harm to vote for the lesser of two evils. That's nonsense, because it still leaves you voting for evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Incidentally, I got as far as this point in 1980, when I was on the Phil Donahue show. I had the whole hour on national TV all to myself, and I felt in top form. It was actually the day before the national election, when Jimmy Carter was the incumbent, running against Ronald Reagan. After I made some economic observations, Donahue accused me of intending to vote for Reagan. I said that I was not, and as sharp as Donahue was, he said, "Well, you're not voting for Carter, so you must be voting Libertarian…" I said no, and had to explain why not. I believed then just as I do now. And it was at about this point when the audience, which had been getting restive, started getting really upset with me. I never made it to point five. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. That same audience, when I pointed out that their taxes were high and were being wasted, contained an individual who asked, "Why do we have to pay for things with our taxes? Why doesn't the government pay for it?" I swear that's what he said; it's on tape. If you could go back and watch the show, you'd see that the audience clapped after that brilliant question. Which was when I first realized that while the situation is actually hopeless, it's also quite comic… L: [Laughs] Doug: And things have only gotten worse since then, with decades more public education behind us. L: I bet that guy works in the Obama administration now, where they seem to think exactly as he did; the government will just pay for everything everyone wants with money it doesn't have. Doug: [Chuckles] Maybe so. He'd now be of an age where he's collecting Social Security and Medicare, plus food stamps, and likely gaming the system for a bunch of other freebies. Maybe he's so discontent with his miserable life that he goes to both Tea Party and Green Party rallies to kill time. I do believe we're getting close to the endgame. The system is on the verge of falling apart. And the closer we get to the edge, the more catastrophic the collapse it appears we're going to have. Which leads me to point number five: Your vote doesn't count. If I'd gotten to say that to the Donahue audience, they probably would have stoned me. People really like to believe that their individual votes count. Politicians like to say that every vote counts, because it gets everyone into busybody mode, makes voters complicit in their crimes. But statistically, any person's vote makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. Thinking their vote counts seems to give people who need it an inflated sense of self-worth. That's completely apart from the fact – as voters in Chicago in 1960 and Florida in 2000 can tell you – when it actually does get close, things can be, and often are, rigged. As Stalin famously said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. Anyway, officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want them to do, once they are in office. They neither know, nor care, what you want. You're just another mark, a mooch, a source of funds. L: The idea of political representation is a myth, and a logical absurdity. One person can only represent his own opinions – if he's even thought them out. If someone dedicated his life to studying another person, he might be able to represent that individual reasonably accurately. But given that no two people are completely – or even mostly – alike, it's completely impossible to represent the interests of any group of people. Doug: The whole constellation of concepts is ridiculous. This leads us to the subject of democracy. People say that if you live in a democracy, you should vote. But that begs the question of whether democracy itself is any good. And I would say that, no, it's not. Especially a democracy unconstrained by a constitution. That, sadly, is the case in the US, where the Constitution is 100% a dead letter. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule dressed up in a suit and tie. It's no way for a civilized society to be run. At this point, it's a democracy consisting of two wolves and a sheep, voting about what to eat for dinner. L: Okay, but in our firmly United State of America today, we don't live in your ideal society. It is what it is, and if you don't vote the bums out, they remain in office. What do you say to the people who say that if you don't vote, if you don't raise a hand, then you have no right to complain about the results of the political process? Doug: But I do raise a hand, constantly. I try to change things by influencing the way people think. I'd just rather not waste my time or degrade myself on unethical and futile efforts like voting. Anyway, that argument is more than fallacious, it's ridiculous and spurious. Actually, only the non-voter does have a right to complain – it's the opposite of what they say. Voters are assenting to whatever the government does; a nonvoter can best be compared to someone who refuses to join a mob. Only he really has the right to complain about what they do. L: Okay then, if the ethical man shouldn't vote in the national elections coming up, what should he do? Doug: I think it's like they said during the war with Viet Nam: Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came? I also like to say: Suppose they levied a tax, and nobody paid? And at this time of year: Suppose they gave an election, and nobody voted? The only way to truly delegitimize a corrupt system is by not voting. When tin-plated dictators around the world have their rigged elections, and people stay home in droves, even today's "we love governments of all sorts" international community won't recognize the results of the election. L: Delegitimizing evil… and without coercion, or even force. That's a beautiful thing, Doug. I'd love to see the whole crooked, festering, parasitical mass in Washington – and similar places – get a total vote of no-confidence. Doug: Indeed. Now, I realize that my not voting won't make that happen. My not voting doesn't matter any more than some naïve person's voting does. But at least I'll know that what I did was ethical. You have to live with yourself. That's only possible if you try to do the right thing. L: At least you won't have blood on your hands. Doug: That's exactly the point. L: A friendly amendment: you do staunchly support voting with your feet. Doug: Ah, that's true. Unfortunately, the idea of the state has spread over the face of the earth like an ugly skin disease. All of the governments of the world are, at this point, growing in extent and power – and rights violations – like cancers. But still, that is one way I am dealing with the problem; I'm voting with my feet. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. It's idiotic to sit around like a peasant and wait to see what they do to you. To me, it makes much more sense to live as a perpetual tourist, staying no more than six months of the year in any one place. Tourists are courted and valued, whereas residents and citizens are viewed as milk cows. And before this crisis is over, they may wind up looking more like beef cows. Entirely apart from that, it keeps you from getting into the habit of thinking like a medieval serf. And I like being warm in the winter, and cool in the summer. L: And, as people say: "What if everyone did that?" Well, you'd see people migrating towards the least predatory states where they could enjoy the most freedom, and create the most wealth for themselves and their posterity. That sort of voting with your feet could force governments to compete for citizens, which would lead to more places where people can live as they want. It could become a worldwide revolution fought and won without guns. Doug: That sounds pretty idealistic, but I do believe this whole sick notion of the nation-state will come to an end within the next couple generations. It makes me empathize with Lenin when he said, "The worse it gets, the better it gets." Between jet travel, the Internet, and the bankruptcy of governments around the world, the nation-state is a dead duck. As we've discussed before, people will organize into voluntary communities we call phyles. L: That's the name given to such communities by science fiction author Neal Stephenson in his book The Diamond Age, which we discussed in our conversation on Speculator's Fiction. Well, we've talked quite a bit – what about investment implications? Doug: First, don't expect anything that results from this US election to do any real, lasting good. And if, by some miracle, it did, the short-term implications would be very hard economic times. What to do in either case is what we write about in our big-picture newsletter, The Casey Report. More important, however, is to have a healthy and useful psychological attitude. For that, you need to stop thinking politically, stop wasting time on elections, entitlements, and such nonsense. You've got to use all of your time and brain power to think economically. That's to say, thinking about how to allocate your various intellectual, personal, and capital assets, to survive the storm – and even thrive, if you play your cards right. L: Very good. I like that: think economically, not politically. Thanks, Doug! Doug: My pleasure. Irrespective of whether one agrees with Doug's politics, his investing record speaks for itself. And just like him, the analysts and editors at Casey Research dig deep in their respective fields and are blunt in their assessments. One thing many agree that the US will have to face, no matter the outcome of the presidential election, is its growing debt crisis. http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-voting-redux
-
- Elections
- Government
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Deputy for the National: the task of monitoring the national front-Abadi, and claims the blocks after the formation of the government Friday, 29 August / August 2014 07:33 [baghdad-where] Said Deputy for the State of Law coalition WIN in the National Alliance, on Friday, that the task of Prime Minister-designate Haider Abadi compaction national ranks to form a government of national partnership and a strong consistent serve all political parties He said Ahmed al-Khafaji told all of Iraq [where] that "there are some claims by the political blocs, including Article 140 and the oil and gas law is not necessary to be resolved before the formation of the government, but should be on the political blocs to look at the formation of the next government and then the government can discuss these claims" . Fonder Khafaji political blocs to soften its demands in order to accelerate the formation of the government. " The Iraqi political blocs conducting dialogues after naming committees negotiating to form a government, with Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abadi told a news conference his first after commissioning held last Monday that "negotiations with the political blocs positive and constructive and stressed Abadi on "the necessity of putting the political blocs, its members in government as soon as possible, "he said, adding that" the government absorb all the energies and includes all the ingredients we need in the coming period to promote trust between the political blocs. " It is said that more than half of the month specified in the constitution to form a government after commissioning Abadi has ended and stayed 10 days in front of him to accomplish Almanmh.anthy 2
-
Kurdistan: Article 140 of the Peshmerga and the arming of the most important conditions for our participation in the next government 19/08/2014 07:12 | Number of readings: 4672 Font Size: BAGHDAD / Source News / .. confirmed a member of the Kurdistan block change Sroh Abdul Wahid, on Tuesday, Kurdish blocs that will have a delegation holds worksheet Kievit participate in the next government, the time of the most important points of the paper arming the peshmerga and Article 140 Said Abdul Wahid told / Source News /, that "the Kurdistan Alliance has a delegation will carry a worksheet in Kievit participate in the next government," indicating that "the region has demands against the post in the next government, and the first of the implementation of Article 140 and it's the problem of financing and arming the peshmerga and the general budget per year and there are other points as well. " "The Kurdish delegation so far did not specify a date for to go to Baghdad, was not the province of the roof of a large liabilities," and hoped that "the next government will be based on the basis of partnership in the decision not to participate." Finished / 19 i
-
GOP States Are The Most Dependent On Government The Huffington Post | by Benjamin Hallman If we learned nothing else during the 2012 election, it is that some of us are makers, hard-working folk solely responsible for America's prosperity, and others are takers, who want the federal government to pay for luxuries like food and health care. What may come as some surprise is where these two warring tribes tend to live. The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars. That's according to the consumer finance site Wallet Hub, which crunched federal tax and spending data and then ranked states from most to least dependent on Uncle Sam. In the map below, green states are the least dependent, while red states -- appropriately -- are the most dependent. The "makingest" state, according to the analysis, is Delaware. Delawareans -- this is really what they call themselves -- pay $1 in taxes for every 50 cents they get back from the federal government. Delaware also has the lowest rate of federal contracts received, as a proportion of federal tax dollars paid. And the state has the highest gross domestic product per capita, at $72,642. The "takingest" states, in a tie, are Mississippi and New Mexico, according to the analysis. Both states take about $3 in federal spending for every $1 contributed in taxes. Both states are highly dependent on federal funding as a percentage of state revenue. And New Mexico, especially, has lots of federal workers. The state with the lowest return on taxpayer investment is South Carolina. Its citizens pay $1 in taxes per capita for every $7.87 in federal funding received. The two states that come closest to breaking even are Washington and Georgia. These states get back $1.05 for every $1 in taxes paid. Wallet Hub tabulated its results using three metrics: taxes paid as compared to federal spending per capita, what percentage of state revenue comes from federal dollars, and the number of federal employees per capita. The first two categories were given more weight than the third. While the rankings are obviously somewhat arbitrary -- one would get different results using different metrics -- they do broadly correspond to patterns of poverty. States like Mississippi and Alabama, which are hugely dependent on federal tax dollars to help feed, clothe and shelter their citizens, are among those with the largest deficits, in terms of what they get in federal help versus what they give back in tax dollars. For most of American history, bringing home the federal pork, in extra benefits for citizens or spending projects, was a badge of honor for elected officials. The rise of the Tea Party has changed this calculus. Now in the most conservative states it is seen as a political boon to turn down federal handouts. In essence, they are trying to become less taker-y. The most obvious evidence of this trend can be seen in the expansion of Medicaid, the health plan for the poor, under the Affordable Care Act. Of the 10 states with the biggest dependency gap, as determined by Wallet Hub, seven -- Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, South Dakota and Tennessee -- have decided not to expand their Medicaid programs, even though the funding would come from federal coffers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-dependent-government_n_5035877.html
-
Judge Dale is one of the good guys and his research and comments are always on the mark. http://shiftfrequency.com/judge-dale-global-currency-reset-and-nda-contract/
-
Simply Marvellous. We shall see what happens. http://news.uscourts.gov/judiciary-remain-open-if-government-shuts-down uscourts.gov THIRD BRANCH NEWS uscourts.gov | court locator | news Judiciary to Remain Open If Government Shuts Down In the event of a government shutdown on October 1, 2013, the federal Judiciary will remain open for business for approximately 10 business days. On or around October 15, 2013, the Judiciary will reassess its situation and provide further guidance. All proceedings and deadlines remain in effect as scheduled, unless otherwise advised. Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) will remain in operation for the electronic filing of documents with courts.
- 22 replies
-
- government
- courts
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
http://rt.com/usa/obama-insider-threat-leaks-905/ Obama administration urges federal employees to spy on each other to avoid leaks Get short URL Published time: July 10, 2013 18:22 Edited time: July 10, 2013 19:09 President Barack Obama has asked that federal agencies launch an unprecedented campaign requiring government workers to monitor the behavior of their colleagues and report potential leakers under the threat of prosecution. McClatchy reporters Jonathan Landay and Marisa Taylor wrote Tuesday that the “Insider Threat” program mandated by Pres. Obama utilizes methods that, while meant to identify security threats from within, actually provoke co-workers to spy on one another. The program is unprecedented in scope and hopes to prevent future instances where government secrets are spilled. According to a new report, however, the Insider Threat initiative and the techniques utilized by the agencies involved are not proven to work. Insider Threat was authorized in October 2011 after Army Private first class Bradley Manning sent classified intelligence to the website WikiLeaks, an action that government prosecutors argued in court this week aided al-Qaeda by indirectly providing them with secret documents. Through the program, employees are asked to monitor the behavior of their peers, and could face hefty penalties if they fail to alert higher-ups of a potential breach. Specifically, the Insider Threat program asks that officials within the ranks of federal agencies spanning all sectors of the government adopt behavioral profiling techniques that ideally would alert higher-ups of a subordinate interested in leaking intelligence. The White House, the Justice Department, the Peace Corps and the departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Education have all been asked to watch out for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers under the program, and If “indicators of insider threat behavior” are brought to attention, officials within those agencies are expected to investigate in order to curb the likelihood of another Pfc. Manning. Research conducted by McClatchy reporters combined with expert interviews suggest those efforts are futile, though, and aren’t proven to work. Gene Barlow, a spokesman for the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, told McClatchy that “the awareness effort of the program is to teach people not only what types of activity to report, but how to report it and why it is so important to report it.” So far, though, that method hasn’t been proven to actually put potential leakers out of work. According to McClatchy, the “indicators” that federal employees are told to monitor include stress, relationship issues, financial problems, odd work hours and random traveling. “It simply educates employees about basic activities or behavior that might suggest a person is up to improper activity,” Barlow told reporters. On the website for his agency’s Insider Threat program, the Office claims that employees may be lured to “betray their nation for ideological reasons, a lust for money or sex, or through blackmail,” and cites threats from within as “the top counterintelligence challenge to our community." Barlow also stressed that the policy “does not mandate” employees to report behavior indicators, but McClatchy reporters noted that failing to act could land an eyewitness with harsh penalties, including criminal charges. According to a 2008 National Research Council study, however, analyzing these indicators do not necessarily signal that one agent may be up to no good. “There is no consensus in the relevant scientific community nor on the committee regarding whether any behavioral surveillance or physiological monitoring techniques are ready for use at all,” the study concluded. “We have not found any silver bullets,” added Deana Caputo, a behavioral scientist at MITRE Corp., which assists several US agencies with their insider threat efforts. “We don’t have actually any really good profiles or pictures of a bad guy, a good guy gone bad or even the bad guy walking in to do bad things from the very beginning.”