Monday, May 31, 2010

Remember Those Who Serve in Our Armed Forces

I want to say to everyone today that I hope each and everyone of you have a great Memorial Day. The Memorial Day weekend undoubtedly is the time where many people travel to visit members of their extended family to catch up on the latest news or events. Memorial Day is also the time famous for cookouts. Everybody fires up the grill and cooks their favorite items such as hot dogs, hamburgers, steak, chicken, and the list continues. Tourism generally increases as well for the weekend. There are some that participate in Memorial Day weekend festivities honoring those veterans that have served in World War II, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the list continues. Memorial Day was originally established to honor those soldiers that had died in war following the Civil War. Today, we've expanded Memorial Day and we honor all those that have passed away whether it be loved ones we know or those that have fought in war and died. Many people place flowers on the tombs to remember their deceased loved ones.

Last week, I read a couple of articles from the USA Today newspaper. The article from Friday's paper had as it's headline, "Afghanistan AMERICA'S LONGEST WAR" It was saying that as of to date the war in Afghanistan eclipes the war in Vietnam. America had troops in the Vietnam War for 103 months. To date U.S. troops have been in Afghanistan 104 months to date and there's no end in sight. U.S. and NATO forces first invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and we've had troops in there since with no end in sight. I would like to know why we're still in Afghanistan? President Obama is still continuing the same policies that the previous Bush administration implemented in Afghanistan. What is the purpose in keeping our troops in Afghanistan if there's not going to be any commitment to win on the part of the military brass or the Obama administration? I will say I do know that our troops that are fighting desire to win. Our troops have done a wonderful job. Considering the situation they've had to contend with, they've done a masterful job. You know they have to be very weary. I applaud them. However, it's disgraceful when we have a government that will send troops into battle and they have no desire or commitment to win. The first problem was neither the wars in Afghanistan nor Iraq were declared by Congress. Congress should declare war. If the Congress would go back to declaring war it would change the equation. It would place our country in the state of mind that we're in war and that we must use our resources to fight and win. If you ever read about some of America's old generals such as Gen. George Patton and Gen. Douglas MacArthur, they believe you send troops to war to win. Nothing else. MacArthur once told Congress that there's no substitute for victory. That's right. It's not right for our government to send troops to war to make money for defense contractors or bankers. There's been a lot of war profiteering that's resulted from these to wars. Our troops are place under ridiculous rules of engagement which make it very difficult for them to win.

The second article I was reading in USA Today was an article about some U.S. troops that have fought in Iraq and after one or two deployments decided they couldn't bear another deployment. They decided to head to Canada. During the Vietnam War, we had men fleeing to Canada to evade the draft. However, don't compare the troops that have already fought in Iraq or Afghanistan and have made the decision to flee America to those in Vietnam that never served in uniform who fled America to evade the draft. There's a huge difference between the two. Frankly, I can't blame them. I can't blame those that have served one or two tours of duty to make the decision to flee to Canada? Why? I know some reading this would probably point the finger of judgment at me. Let me say this, why should we expect those that have served in our armed forces to continue being loyal to the government when the government will send them into harm's way with no commitment to victory? That's not right towards our troops. They're placed under silly rules of engagement in the military which makes it difficult to defeat the enemy. I know some would classify those soldiers that have left their posts as AWOL or deserters. I know some would probably say those that fled America should be placed in prison. Let me ask you this: Why aren't those in the previous administration prosecuted and placed in prison for sending our troops to wars with no commitment to victory? That's a good question. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, to name a few should be prosecuted for what they did to our troops. I considered it traitorous for our government to ever send troops to battle without any objective for total victory. You only send troops to war when all efforts of diplomacy have failed and there's no other choice but to stop the aggressor. When troops are sent to war, they should be given all the ammunition needed to win. Once the war's finished, they should exit as quickly as possible. Let me make a statement to some parents. If you are very hypocritical in the way you raise your children you can't expect your children to follow after you. If you desire for your children to obey you and follow you, you must live straight before them. I feel the same way when it comes to the military. If our government expects our troops to be loyal to duty, then the government must be loyal to our troops and not send them to battle without an objective for victory. The government hasn't done right before our troops. There have been some troops that were in situations where they shot the enemy in self-defense and they were court-martialed and placed on trial. That wasn't right. I'm not trying to encourage those that have served two tours to move to Canada. The point I was making was that I could understand why some soldiers have fled to Canada. The government has the first responsibility to do right towards our soldiers. It's traitorous to send troops to battle unless it's for victory.

I want to take this time to say thank you to all of those that have served in our armed forces Thank you for your sacrifices in defending this country and for defending our freedoms. The freedom that I enjoy in writing this post or speaking out against the government when they're wrong is due to your sacrifice in defending America's freedoms on the battlefield. We need to take this time more than ever to remember and pray for our troops. We especially need to remember those that are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops always need our prayers. Now more than ever, we need to remember and pray for them. Have a great day!

Sunday, May 30, 2010

False Gospels

In the previous two posts from the book of Galatians I was dealing with the subjects "Only One Gospel" and "No Flesh is Justified by the Law". The Apostle Paul, who penned the book of Galatians was dealing with those Judaizers who were insisting that Jewish circumcision and the Mosaic law were essential for salvation. The Apostle Paul was pointing out that there were some among you trying to promote another gospel, which isn't another. The Apostle Paul was saying that if anybody preaches another gospel than that which was received by them, then let that person be accursed. The Apostle Paul noted that the gospel he preached to the church at Galatia was from God and not from man. He was having to refute legalism being taught in Galatia. Legalism is adding law to salvation. Instead of salvation being by grace through faith, the Judaizers added circumcision and the Mosaic law to salvation. That's damnable heresy. In Chapter 3 Paul was making the point that under the law no flesh is justified. Man is condemned by the law. However, the law is a schoolmaster which brings us to Christ. The law has no redeeming value. However, that doesn't mean the law is void. No. No. It's good but man's not saved by the law. When God saves a man, the laws of God will be written in the child of God's heart. God grants a Christian the desire to follow the law.

Galatians 1:6-9 says, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that call you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." In the age of Christendom in which we live, we have a perversion of the gospel of Christ. What do I mean when I say perversion? It's a gospel which has been twisted, diluted with lies and half-truths. It's a false gospel. It's a gospel contrary to scripture. You can drive around to any church or religious citadel in America and you'll find all kinds of false teaching concerning the gospel. I'm going to briefly focus on some of the false gospels or false teachings out there.

1. Salvation by works. You have churches teaching that salvation is through works. The Catholic Church teaches that. Mormons teach that. They teach that you can perform good works and the good will outweigh the bad. The Catholic church teaches that when a person dies they'll enter purgatory and the Catholic saints can pray them into Heaven. It doesn't work that way. Ephesians 2:8-9 bears out we are saved by grace through faith. It's a gift of God and it isn't of works. Jesus paid the debt on Calvary. All mankind has to do is recognize that he's sinned before God and if he's drawn by the Holy Ghost can repent of his sins and trust in Jesus. A child of God that's saved experiences what II Corinthians 5:17 says. They'll become a new creature and old things are passed away and all things become new. God doesn't save a sinner in his sin. God saves a sinner from his sin. Hebrews 13:5-8 bears out a child of God will experience chastening from God. If they don't they're none of His.

2. You must be baptized to be saved. The Church of Christ teaches salvation by water baptism. However, Ephesians 2:8-9 bears out a sinner is saved by grace through faith. A believer is commanded to be baptized but water baptism doesn't seal a believer's salvation. We're to be baptized in obedience to Christ to show the world that we've dead to this world and resurrected in Christ.

3. Prosperity gospel. The Charismatic movement is the primary group promoting this prosperity gospel. All you have to do is listen to TBN and you'll hear that kind of teaching. The late evangelist Oral Roberts promoted this gospel of seed faith. If you give a certain amount of money, God will multiply it and you can be rich. God does promise the believer in Malachi if they bring their tithes and offerings in the storehouse God will pour out a blessing from Heaven in which you can't contain. However, God's blessings don't always come in the form of money. God doesn't promise us riches if we give to God's work. Jesus said the poor we'll have with us always. It's not God's will for everybody to be rich. God desires us to be prosperous, but prosperity isn't always tangible.

4. Circumcision. One of the false gospels that was taught in the New Testament was Jewish circumcision. The Jewish law required that Jews were to be circumcised. Circumcision began with Abraham and was practiced in the New Testament. When the gospel was spread to the Gentiles, they were taught they had to be circumcised to be saved. However, circumcision was for the Jew. It was a sign showing they were Jews. It was part of the old Mosaic Law. There were teachers instructing Gentiles they must be circumcised to be saved. The Apostle Paul addressed that issue in Galatians 6:11-15.

These are just some of the examples of false gospels being preached in churches today. I could expound on many more, but at least you have a small sample of false teachings in our churches today. These false teachings are the reason why it's so important for Christians to earnestly contend for the faith. (Jude 1:3)

Saturday, May 29, 2010

A Possible Theory Explaining Abraham Lincoln's and John F. Kennedy's Assassination

(Michaeljournal.org/lincolnkennedy.htm) Yesterday I was doing a little research on the website concerning John F. Kennedy's view about the Federal Reserve. I've read and heard that JFK wasn't a fan of the Federal Reserve. He issued an executive order number E.O. 11110 which would eventually help dismantle the Federal Reserve. In the midst of looking up information on different websites concerning Kennedy and the Federal Reserve, I came across a website that presented a theory on why both Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were assassinated. It was over the issue of money. Both presidents had created their own money system to run the United States while in office. There's been numerous theories created on why both Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated. Naturally, one of the theories why Lincoln was assassinated was his support of the Union effort in the War and many Southerners didn't support Lincoln. You could naturally explain that as a plausible reason for Lincoln's assassination. However, could there have been another explanation for his assassination which has been covered up? You may never know but it's worth considering. There have been a whole list of reasons explaining Kennedy's assassination. There's been theories such as the mafia or then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson being behind the assassination attempt. Other reasons given have been over Vietnam or Cuban dictator Fidel Castro behind it. No one may ever know the reasons behind both presidents' assassinations, but I've read a theory that I think is interesting which I'll share with you. I'M GOING TO SAY UP FRONT THE THEORY THAT I'M ABOUT TO PRESENT TO YOU CONCERNING BOTH PRESIDENTS' ASSASSINATIONS IS JUST THAT--A THEORY. I HAVEN'T READ ENOUGH ABOUT THE SUBJECT TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF IT. TO ME IT SOUNDS PLAUSIBLE AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF IT COULD BE THE REASON. I'M NOT PRESENTING THIS AS THE GOSPEL TRUTH BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE REASON FOR THEIR ASSASSINATIONS. I'M JUST SPECULATING.

During the Civil War from 1861-65, President Lincoln needed money to help finance the war for the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was distressed over this because he didn't want to plunge this nation into a debt into which it would be impossible to pay back. Lincoln was eventually advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for a war effort. The Treasury notes were printed with green ink on the back, thus they were referred to as "Greenbacks." Lincoln printed over 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the total was $449,338,902). It was money he delegated to be created. It was debt-free and interest-free money to help finance the war. It was served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it and paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for the war. "The London Times" had printed an article following the printing and said that the U.S. would become the most prosperous country in the world if the Greenbacks were to flourish. It said that (the U.S.) government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.

Following the publishing of this article, the British government, which was controlled by the London and other European bankers, moved to support the Confederate South, hoping to defeat Lincoln and the Union, and destroy the government which they said must be destroyed. There were two things that stopped them. First of all, Lincoln knew the British people didn't support slavery so he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that slavery in the states that rebelled must end. As a result, the London bankers couldn't support the Confederacy because he knew the British people were opposed to slavery. Secondly, the Czar of Russia sent a portion of the Russian navy to the United States with orders that its admiral would operate under the command of Abraham Lincoln. These ships of the Russian navy then became a threat to the ships of the British navy which had intended to break the blockade and help the South. As history tells us the North won the war and the Union was preserved. However, the London Bankers were still determined to place an end to Lincoln's interest-free, debt-free Greenbacks. He was assassinated by an agent of the Bankers shortly after the war ended. Shortly thereafter, Congress revoked the Greenback Law and enacted in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest bearing. The Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in the payment of taxes.

A few decades after the passage of the National Banking Act, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the Bankers finally got what they desired. If the federal government had continued Lincoln's Greenback policy, America would've been the most prosperous country in the world and be a debt-free nation. The brains and the wealth of the world would've come to America. By passing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, Congress gave up its power to create its own money. Instead private international bankers were given charge to run a central bank privately owned. Mayor Anselm Rothschild once said, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws..."

Since President Lincoln's assassination, no president has ever dared to go against the banking system and create its own money until John F. Kennedy came into office. When reading about JFK, I've come to have a newfound respect for him. I didn't agree with his moral life and his problem he had with women, but I respect him in his challenging the Federal Reserve. He was a Democrat. He wasn't afraid to "buck the system" because he understood how the Federal Reserve System was being used to destroy the United Staes. He knew the system smelled corruption from "A to Z." On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document called Executive Order 11110, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country. It was money that would belong to the people which was an interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes. He completed ignored the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve. Records show that Kennedy issued "$4,292,893,825 of cash money. A few months later, Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. There was no apparent reason given for such an atrocious crime. All we knew was it was some average man named Lee Harvey Oswald that assassinated and then in turn Jack Ruby assassinated Oswald. Evidently Kennedy had it in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and return the United States Congress the power to create its own money. One day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States note, which Kennedy had issued, were called out of circulation. The question is was this through an executive order of the newly installed president, Lyndon B. Johnson? All the money that President Kennedy had created had been destroyed.

I appreciate Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy having the courage to stand up for the United States and print U.S. notes. This act may have cost both presidents their lives. I can't say for sure but nothing would surprise me. We're you're facing international bankers, you are treading in dangerous territory when you oppose the Federal Reserve and desire to set the United States on a different course. It's all about power. It's about the power to create a new world order and a one world currency. That's what is eventually coming.

Glenn Beck Apologizes for Mimicking Malia Obama

Yesterday during his morning radio program Glenn Beck was commenting on the news conference that President Barack Obama conducted about the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. In the news conference President Obama stated that his oldest daughter, Malia had asked him about the oil spill. He claimed Malia asked, "Daddy, Daddy? Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?" I listened to the Rush Limbaugh program on radio yesterday and he was mentioning about that very incident. I had wondered when Limbaugh brought up the subject did Malia really ask her father that question or did President Obama make that statement to achieve some type of response from saying that. Whether or not Malia Obama asked her father that question I don't know. You wouldn't think that a child that's 12 years old would necessarily think to ask such a question as that. However, I'll give her the benefit of a doubt.

Glenn Beck on his radio show was mocking Malia Obama. He pretended he was Malia asking the question and his co-host, Pat Gray, was pretending to be President Obama responding to the question. Beck imitated Malia and asked did he plug the hole in yet. Pat Gray responded as President Obama, "Not yet, there hasn't been enough damage done yet." Also, Beck brought up the issue of race and, imitating Malia, asked why the President hates white people. Later on in the day following the program, Beck issued an apology stating that he broke his own rule in bringing the children of elected officials into the equation. Here's the statement Beck made when he made his apology: "The children of public figures should be left on the sidelines. It was a stupid mistake and I apologize, and as a dad I should have known better."

Glenn Beck was being too silly for his own good. I totally agree that when criticizing elected officials, you shouldn't bring their children into the conversation. You shouldn't be mocking them or placing the media spotlight on them. Both Malia and Sasha Obama aren't responsible for the choices their father makes. I'm very opposed to President Obama's socialist policies. However, I don't use that as an opportunity to mock President Obama's daughters or even his wife. The only way that I would ever criticize his wife would be if she made some very foolish statement that deserved criticism. Not only shouldn't we blame the president's children for his statements or actions, we shouldn't blame the president's wife either. I recall during President Obama's campaign in 2008 it was purported that First Lady Michelle Obama had made a statement claiming that for the first time in her life she was proud to be an American. It gave the impression she wasn't proud to be an American until President Obama ran for president. However, I haven't heard her say anything since that would give me a reason to criticize her. The point is, when I criticize the president, I'm criticizing him only--not his wife or his children.

Glenn Beck needs to be cautious what he says when he's joking. He doesn't need unnecessary criticism. He's already been criticized for standing up to the truth. Don't give the mainstream media a legitimate reason to criticize you. I was reading in an article that the Fox news executives heard the dialogue and weren't pleased with it. I believe in freedom of speech. I support it one hundred percent. However, you must handle that freedom cautiously. Speech can be damaging when it's abused. The presidents children or any elected officials' children don't need the spotlight on them. The children of these elected officials didn't have any choice in their mother or father running for office. The spouses or children of elected officials don't deserve unnecessary scrutiny.

I can recall when George W. Bush was president. I was very displeased at the direction he was taking our country. However, I centered my criticism toward him and other elected officials that were at fault. I didn't criticize his wife Laura Bush or his daughters, Jenna and Barbara. They weren't the ones making the policies. There's an old saying that former president Harry Truman said and that was "The buck stops here." It stops on his desk. It doesn't get passed to his family. We need to be very cautious in whom we assign blame to. We only assign blame to those that are at fault--nobody else. We shouldn't in any way mock or poke fun at their immediate family. We shouldn't hold an elected official's family accountable when his/her family aren't responsible for the policies that are made.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Founder's Friday: African American Founders

Glenn Beck on his Fox News program today hosted Founder's Friday once again. Today's program was entitled, "African-American Founders." He interviewed both David Barton, founder of Wall Keepers and Lucas Morell, a black college professor, about the contributions blacks made concerning the founding of our country. There were black men such as Peter Salem and Prince Whipple that fought in the American Revolutionary War. How many people today are aware of that? You won't find in today's public school textbooks the mentioning of many blacks that fought in the American Revolutionary War for our country's independence. Whenever studying black history in America from the first slaves that set foot on American soil in 1619 until the abolition of slavery following the Civil War, you won't read about very many blacks that weren't slaves or made notable achievements. The only free blacks that most Americans probably have read about in their U.S. history classes were Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and maybe to a lesser extent, Josiah Henson escaping from his master to head to Canada to obtain his freedom. Until I watched this evening's program, I myself wasn't familiar with the names of the blacks that were mentioned on Glenn Beck's Fox News program. When writing about the history of blacks in America prior to the Civil War, many historians depict blacks in general as being abused and mistreated by their masters as slaves. That is true to a large extent. However, all blacks weren't mistreated by their masters. There were some great relationships between blacks and whites even in Colonial America. There were some blacks that made notable achievements in American history during that time frame.

In trying to determine how to construct a blogpost in mentioning the achievements of some of these early African Americans, I've decided to randomly mention the names of some of the blacks that fought alongside whites during the Revolutionary War and what they're noted for. It will be a brief description of each of these men. I will later write an essay going more in-depth about some of the early black Americans. I hope you enjoy this.

1. James Armistead - He was a double spy in the American Revolutionary War. He was a spy for General George WAshington.

2. Crispus Attucks - He is considered the first martyr of the American Revolution. In March 1770, a fight broke out between the British soldiers and a crowd of American colonists led by an African American, Crispus Attucks. In the attack, a British soldier was struck on the head with a stick which many believe was Attuck's handiwork, as he was seen without a stick in his hand. The soldier that was struck fired his musket at Attucks and the crowd surrounding him killing five people instantly. He was buried as a hero in the Granary Burying Ground. He is one of the few martyrs of the Boston Massacre and is remembered for his bravery.

3. Colonel Louis Cook - He fought against the British army. It was George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, who referred to him as "Colonel Louis." Cook participated in many attacks on the British troops. In March 1770, he was sent by General Phillip Schuyler to destroy British ships at Niagra. He received his commission from the Continental Congress as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Continental Army and was first and perhaps the only African American to be rewarded this highest rank.

4. Jack Sisson - He played an important role in the capture of the British General Richard Prescott in July 1777. He was part of the 40 armed continental soldiers, led by Colonel William Barton, who cut across British controlled waters to sneak up on Prescott. Sisson used his own head to break down Prescott's door and capture him.

5. Prince Estabrook - He was a black slave and a Minuteman who fought and was wounded at the Battle of Lexington, the first battle of the American Revolutionary War. He enlisted in the Lexington militia in 1773 in the company of Captain John Parker, the first to engage the British in Lexington. His master Benjamin Estabrook, granted him his emancipation following his service to the Continental Army.

6. Peter Salem - He was born as a slave in Framingham, Massachusetts sometime around the year 1750. His original owner was Jeremiah Belknap. Jeremiah sold Peter to Lawson Buckminister, who allowed Salem to enlist in the Massachusetts militia. In exchange for enlisting in the army, he received his freedom. He served in the Colonial Army until the end of he War. He also fought at Concord and at Saratoga. Peter Salem has been credited with killing Major John Pitcairn, the leader of the British forces storming the hill. The colonial troops were near defeat and British Major John Pitcairn ordered them to surrender. Salem stepped forward and shot Pitcairn.

7. Prince Whipple - He fought the battles of Saratoga in Delaware during the War for Independence. He was also one 20 enslaved men who petitioned the New Hampshire legislature for freedom in 1779. His own master General William Whipple was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and was an aid to George Washington. Even though Whipple was identified by some as the African American figure in the familiar painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River, it is doubtful he was present on Christmas Eve, 1776.

8. Benjamin Banneker - He was an African American mathematician and American astronomer. He was also a surveyor, an almanac author, and a farmer. He also carved wooden replicas of each piece of used parts from a clock to make a clock that struck hourly. He completed the clock in 1753. The clock was still running when he died in 1806.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

President Obama May be a Two-term President

In the last year and a half President Obama and Congress have been in the process of transforming America into a socialist nation. They've been working behind the scenes to make that happen. Last year both General Motors and Chrysler filed bankruptcy and now both corporations are under the ownership of the government. Congress passed a very controverial healthcare bill which will overhaul our country's healthcare system and control 1/6th of America's economy. They've also been working towards repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the military in regards to homosexuals openly displaying their homosexuality. There have been incidents that have taken place such as the Christmas Day bomb plot and the bomb plot in Times Square. Thankfully, those bombs failed to detonate. On April 20 the Deepwater Horizons rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana. Ever since that day there have been millions of gallons of oil that's been spewing from a damaged well at the bottom of the Ocean. BP within the last couple of days have tried the "Top kill" method to cap the hole that's spewing oil. We won't know the results of that procedure until approximately a few days. However, the federal government's response to that crisis was delayed. There's plenty of blame to throw around. BP, Transocean Ltd., Halliburton, and the federal government all share in the blame of not responding quickly enough to contain the oil spill. As a result of that incident, President Obama's approval rating is hovering around 42% according to some polls. It would appear that President Obama's chances of winning re-election in 2012 appear to be slim.

Within the last few months we've been hearing statements from political figures such as Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney to name a few, that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. They're basing that on President Obama's performance in the White House so far as well as Republicans gaining seats. It also appears there could be a shaking up of Congress in the fall Congressional elections. Republicans are seeking to regain power since 2006. There have already been a few surprises in some races in which the Republicans won. We even had some incumbents defeated during the primary such as Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. There's a possibility of more incumbent defeats in the primary due to the influence the Tea Party movement is having in America. However, one must not count their chickens before they're hatched. The general election of 2010 hasn't taken place yet nor do we know who the Republican presidential candidates will be in 2012. If the Republicans recapture both the House and Senate this fall, then there's a likelihood President Obama's approval ratings will rebound afterwards. I don't trust the Republicans and I guarantee if they regain both Houses they will flounder once again. The Republicans are just as much about power themselves. Both the Democrats and Republicans are working together to change this country in a destructive way. The Republicans aren't going to stand for the values they claim they uphold. They'll lie to the voters pretending they're the candidate for change. Then once they're elected they'll become part of the Washington elite. Once they become part of the elite group in Washington, they'll be worthless as elected officials. They'll be Democrat-lite. I guarantee you they won't stand for God, country, and the Constitution. That's a very strong statement, but that just shows you how much faith I have in our elected elite. Both parties are still financed by the same interest groups. Both parties craft their legislation towards the lobbyists that support their campaigns.

Let's take a look at the Bill Clinton presidency. Clinton took oath of office on January 20, 1993. He started off filling his cabinet with leftists such as Janet Reno and Joycelyn Elders, to name a few. He placed his wife in charge of a healthcare task force in 1994 to push for a healthcare overhaul bill which thankfully didn't happen. By the time the mid-term elections came around, President Clinton's popularity dropped. Then came along Newt Gingrich and the Republicans who crafted a document entitled, "Contract with America". The Republicans captured both Houses of Congress that fall. Clinton knew he was in trouble. Clinton was shrewd. He knew how to manipulate the situation and use it to his advantage. He began moderating some of his stances and he used some situations to exploit the Republicans. As it turned out, the Republicans and Newt Gingrich weren't the party of change and instead it was the same old brand of politics as usual. Newt Gingrich was more concerned about power and being seen with the president than standing for the principles that elected him and the Republicans to power. In 1996, The Republican Party nominated Bob Dole, as a weak candidate for the presidency. The Dole campaign had nothing to offer. As a result, Clinton won re-election in a landslide. History tends to repeat itself.

If the Republicans recapture both Houses of Congress this fall, President Obama will tone down his language and try to sound more like a moderate to appease the Republican Congress and the average American voter. Some will probably say that Obama may gravitate toward the middle. I personally don't see Obama gravitating toward the middle, but he will try to give the appearance he's moderating his left-leaning stance toward the center. He'll have to be very clandestine in his business. However, the Republicans that are elected this year aren't going to be the party of change. They'll continue the business of politics as usual. The Republicans may mount a charge of trying to "repeal" the healthcare bill, but President Obama will use it to give the American public the impression that the Republicans are the party of the rich and don't care for the poor. It will all be a dog-and-pony show.

If the Republicans' performance in the next Congress is dismal or worse like I'm predicting, then President Obama could win re-election in 2012. What kind of candidates will the Republicans offer to challenge Obama for the presidency in 2012? They'll be weak-kneed Republicans who won't pose much of a challenge to Obama. That's what I'm afraid of. Some Republicans believe the best candidate on the Republican side that we have for president is Sarah Palin. If she's the best candidate for the Republicans in 2012, we're in trouble. Sarah Palin's a nice, charming lady. She's a person you would enjoy being around. However, she's not presidential material. I'm not saying that because she's a woman. She appears to be a woman that can easily be compromised. In her campaigning for Republican candidates this year she endorsed incumbent John McCain in Arizona (no surprise there) and Republican candidate Carly Fiorina in California (she was an adviser to McCain in his presidential campaign in 2008). Also, Palin resigned from the governor's seat in Alaska last year in which it appears she did it to be hired as a Fox news contributor. Democrats would exploit that issue if she were to run in 2012. However, the Republican Party would groom her to fit in with the top party elites.

Another candidate I hear mentioned is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is very intellectual and he can come up with a number of solutions to the political crisis in America. However, I still remember when he was House Speaker. He was concerned with power when he was in office. He didn't change Washington and if he was elected president he wouldn't change Washington today. He would be better off writing books and speaking at political engagements than running for political office. Joseph Farah wrote a column in his "World Net Daily" post Sunday stating Gingrich isn't the candidate we need for 2012. Other potential candidates springing up could be Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. However, he's not that impressive either. Mitt Romney is somebody else we don't need. He was the one that pushed for the healthcare plan that Massachusetts currently has and it has costed the state dearly. Also, Romney has flip-flopped on the abortion issue a number of times. I classify Romney as another Republican RINO. Sunday night talk-show host Bill Cunningham has mentioned Sean Hannity's name a number of times on his program. He believes Hannity would make a good president and could win it. I've listened to Hannity on radio and watched him on his Fox News program a number of times. He usually feautures both liberals and conservatives on his programs bringing out the Democrat and Republican talking points. Sean doesn't have anything new to offer to politics. Hannity would fit in with the Republican elite as well. He wouldn't make much of a president. As one can see, there's nobody on the horizon that would prove to be a formidable candidate for president Obama. If we have another creampuff candidate challenging Obama similar to Bob Dole and John McCain, then President Obama will win re-election. You can't convince me otherwise. You're not going to beat Obama with a creampuff candidate. I don't care what the president's approval rating will be in 2012. It will take a strong, formidable candidate with a backbone of conviction that isn't concerned about party politics but what's best for America. The Republican candidate can't devoting his time criticizing Obama's policies and not having his own agenda to replace Obama's. As Jim Sumpter succintly puts it, "In all things, America first." That's the kind of presidential candidate we need. My slogan is "God, country, and the Constitution." That's what we need in a Republican candidate, which isn't likely to happen. Both political parties are controlled by elitist groups that desire candidates that will continue furthering the new world order agenda. In other words, whoever wins the presidential election in 2012 will be a puppet or figure head to the puppet masters that control everything, whomever they may be. If the events that take place within the next couple of years are just as I predict, then PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL WIN A SECOND TERM! GOD HELP US IF THAT HAPPENS!

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Some Advice for Dr. Rand Paul

Shortly after winning the Republican Party nomination for the U.S. Senate, Republican nominee Dr. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist in Bowling Green, stirred up some unnecessary controversy when he appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. Anyone who knows anything about MSNBC knows that it's one of the most liberal news networks in the country. There's probably not a major news media network that is as much pro-Obama as MSNBC. However, on May 20, Rand Paul made an appearance on Rachel Maddow and the topic for discussion was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul stated that he disagreed with the provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which states that private businesses can't discriminate against minorities. Paul, the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul and a Libertarian states that he believes the federal government doesn't have the right to intrude on private businesses. That was Paul's argument. As a result, Paul's already been facing a storm of protest because of his statements. The national Democrats are focusing on Paul's statement about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and will undoubtedly use that against him in the upcoming November election. Jack Conway, the Democratic nominee who will be facing Paul in November, will probably be using those sound bites in campaign ads. Paul's already placed himself in hot water.

I was reading a blog called "The Hill" and it had a post on there which said that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had some advice for Paul. The post read that McConnell stated Paul needs to stay out of the national spotlight and focus his attention on campaigning to the voters in Kentucky. I'm not a McConnell fan, but he's exactly on target. What was the purpose of Dr. Rand Paul appearing on the Rachel Maddow show on May 20 to discuss an issue that he's very unlikely going to visit if he win's Jim Bunning's Senate seat this fall? That is an irrelevant issue as far as I'm concerned. Does Paul intend on revising that one provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act? I highly doubt it. Paul needs to spend his time trying to make his appeal to those that are going to elect him to the Senate. Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. aren't going to elect him. It doesn't serve much purpose for him to appear on those networks.

Since I am a voter in Kentucky, I have a little advice for Dr. Rand Paul that I feel would be helpful concerning his fall campaign. I'm certain he's not going to pay much attention to me, but I do have a few words of advice. First of all, stay out of the national spotlight. I'm reiterating what Senator Mitch McConnell said. You need to devote your time campaigning across the Bluegrass state. You need to make appearances at rallies, forums, debates, and the list continues. It's not necessary for you to make appearances on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, but you do need to make appearances on local television in Kentucky. You also should use the medium of radio to broadcast your message as well. The Kentucky voters are the only ones you need to concern yourself with. We're the ones that will be voting for you. The major networks aren't going to vote for you.

Secondly, you should devote your time campaigning on issues that are relevant to Kentuckians and America nationwide. Don't waste your time elaborating about past issues such as civil rights when you're aren't going to revisit those issues. Are you planning on revisiting the 1964 Civil Rights Act to modify the provision about government intruding in on private businesses? I doubt it. Leave it alone. There are numerous race baiters out there that will take you to task over that such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Remeber last fall when President Obama was speaking before Congress about his healthcare proposal and Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled "You lie!" Jimmy Carter later twisted Wilson's statement trying to insinuate that Wilson said it because he had the belief a black man shouldn't be in the White House. You will be called racist and all sorts of names for the statement you made about government and private business. You didn't help your cause. Don't waste your time speaking of past issues that you don't intend using your influence as Senator to change. Also, there was a statement you made last Saturday about President Obama when you criticized him for criticizing BP because it gave the appearance of being un-American or anti-business. That was not a carefully constructed statement. A better statement would've been, "Mr. President, I know you've been critical of BP's response in regards to the massive oil spill in the Gulf, and they do deserve blame where blame is due. However, what has the federal government done to try to contain the oil spill? How come the Department of Homeland Security, the Navy, the Coast Guard, FEMA, or othe agencies stepped in to help contain this massive oil spill? This is an emergency that requires teamwork. This effects our economy, wildlife, the fishing industry, etc. You haven't done your part either in dealing with this oil spill." That would've been a much stronger statement. While you're at it, why don't you take time to criticize the cozy relationship between the government and the oil industry? Anytime government and corporations are in bed together, there's always the potential for something crooked to take place.

In your campaign, you make much about the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, your campaign slogan should revolve around God, country, and the Constitution. That's my slogan. I'm going to suggest you adopt it. What do I mean by that? First of all, you should recognize God created the world and He's in charge. Secondly, this country was founded by people that wanted the freedom to worship God as they chose. They also founded this country on Judeo Christian principles. Everything revolves around the Lord. Secondly your purpose as a Senator is to respect this great country's sovereignty and its borders. You should also recognize English is our official language and anyone that migrates to this country should learn English if he/she intends to live here. Do you respect our immigration laws and what would you do to enforce border security? Are you in favor of building a border fence? What would be your plan for those that live in this country illegally? Those are important questions. What's your view on trade agreements with other countries? Thirdly, as a Senator you are to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution. Are you supportive of any legislation that is in opposition to the Constitution? Would you make attempts as Senator to repeal the recently passed healthcare bill? What's your view about the Federal Reserve? Would you support America leaving the Federal Reserve and come back to the constitutional principle of Congress coining our money? Your campaign should revolve around those three words I just mentioned: God, country, and the Constitution.

Lastly, you need to address the issue concerning energy in America. Do you believe America needs to stop importing foreign oil? What's your view about drilling for oil in general? How about offshore drilling in the face of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizons rig? How can we ensure that we can prevent another explosion like the Deepwater Horizons? What should the federal response be in a crisis of this magnitude? What forms of alternate energy would you be in favor of? The energy issue is very critical. It's not only critical in the sense of conservation but also in terms of national security. Given the warlike atmosphere in the Middle East, we don't need to continue importing oil from the Middle East. This issue is urgent.

In summation, you need to focus on the issues that matter to Kentuckians and America as a whole. Don't focus on past issues that are irrelevant for today. Also, devote your time to campaigning in Kentucky and don't concern yourself with making guest appearances on these major networks such as MSNBC, Fox, and CNN. If you will focus on those two things you will increase your chances for a victory in November. You already are in trouble for bringing up a past issue. The Democrats will exploit your statement about the 1964 Civil Rights bill from now until November. It would be wise for you to focus on the important issues that affect us today instead of issues from the past you have no intention of changing .

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Felipe Calderon Chastises America over Arizona's Immigration Law

(The Hill Blog) Mexican President Felipe Calderon condemned Arizona's tough new immigration law during a joint speech Thursday to Congress. Calderon said Arizona's law, which is meant to stem the tide of illegal immigration into the state, primarily from Mexico, "introduces a terrible idea that uses racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement. "I am convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform bill is crucial to securing our common border," the Mexican president told lawmakers in both parties gathered for the speech. "However, I strongly disagree with your recently adopted law in Arizona." Democrats stood and applauded Calderon's remarks at that point in the speech while many Republicans remained seated with no applause.

Republicans criticized Calderon for using an appearance with President Obama on Wednesday at the White House to attack the Arizona law, which compels law enforcement officials to confront individuals whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant to ask them for paperwork verifying their legal status in the U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee said on Fox News Thursday, "I just don't think it's right for the president of another country to come here and criticize our nation or our states for wanting to stop human smuggling, stop drug trafficking, or frankly securing their borders."

I've never seen such hypocrisy come from Felipe Calderon like I did this past Thursday. Calderon was chastising the U.S. for Arizona's new immigration law when Mexico has also is strict with their illegals. Mexico has very strict immigration laws themselves. Which I don't blame them. However, don't be a hypocrite and come before Congress and tell us that Arizona's new immigration law amounts to nothing more than possible racial profiling. Does Mexico utilize racial profiling when they suspect someone in that country may not be a Mexican citizen? I'm certain they do. The problems we have in America is due to illegal immigration. The street gangs, drug cartels, and the problems we face as a result of illegal immigration stem mostly from Mexico. I do recognize some cross the border for no other reason than to work and to find a better way of life. I understand that. However, America's economy in certain states such as California is bankrupt due to the influx of illegal aliens that cross the border. Many of them that cross the border receive free medical care and that all costs the state. I don't blame them for the desire to want to come to America for a better way of life. However, those that are here need to be documented. We need to know who's here that's not an American citizen. If there are Mexicans here to work, then they need legal work permits. America needs a tracking system to know who's in our country. It's for security purposes.

Arizona's law mirrors that of the federal law. Arizona, under the leadership of Gov. Jan Brewer, passed an illegal immigration law due to the problems Arizona faces with crime and drug cartels. They're doing it for their own security. Our own federal government has refused to crack down on illegals for decades. That's why there's so much problem with crime, for example. Before we ever think about passing some type of immigration reform bill, we must force close the border except at certain checkpoints before we try to reform our immigration laws. That's the first line of responsibility our country has. Then afterward, they can decide what to do with those illegals that are already living here. One thing's for certain. Anyone that crosses the border must be documented so we know who's here that's from another country. Also, those prisoners that are in prison that are from another country should be deported immediately. We don't want to harbor criminals that are from another country in the United States. Also, we need to build a border fence across the U.S. Mexican border to make it more difficult for illegals to cross our border.

Felipe Calderon has a lot of audacity to criticize the United States for Arizona's immigration policy when Mexico's own immigration policy is tough. The fact that many Mexicans cross the U.S.'s border speaks volumes about the type of country Mexico is. Mexico is impoverished in many sections of the country. The leadership is corrupt. Instead of trying to make life better for Mexican citizens, Calderon is content to push them off to America. If Calderon could care less about the welfare of his citizens, then he needs to keep silent about America's immigration laws. Also, since we possess millions of illegals in America, Mexico should give the U.S. several barrels of their own oil in exchange for all the illegals that live in America. I believe that's just proper.

Monday, May 24, 2010

President Obama Appoints an Oil Spill Probe

(TV Press) President Barack Obama has appointed a commission to probe the real causes of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Those that are on the committee will be offering suggestions on how to "prevent" such an incident as that catastrophic oil spill ever again. Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham and former EPA Chief William Reilly will be co-chairing the committee.

In his weekly radio and internet address, President Obama promised to seek guarantees that such offshore drilling accidents won't happen again in the future. The supposed purpose of this commission is to consider both the root cause of the disaster and to offer options on what safety and environmental precautions we need to take to prevent similiar disasters from happening again. The President vows to tighten the screws on British Petroleum, Halliburton, and Transocean LTD, who are in charged of the damaged deepwater well, to find a solution to the problem. Approximately a couple of weeks ago the heads of these oil companies were testifying before Congress and each head was pointing fingers at the other person. According to experts, there are approximately 210,000 gallons of crude daily spewing from the damaged wellhead. About a month ago, President Obama lifted the ban on offshore drilling which drew applause from Republicans but alarmed environmentalists. Now, as a result of this catastrophe the administration is placing plans for future offshore drilling on hold.

I am very appalled at what I've been seeing in regards to this oil spill. This whole disaster is a joke. It's unnecessary. British Petroleum, Transocean, LTD, Halliburton, and the federal government are at fault. There isn't a sense of urgency amongst any of these players to cap off the damaged wellhead or to contain the massive oil spill. Many fishermen's livelihoods could be disrupted for a number of years possibly because of the neglect from the Federal Government and the oil companies to rectify this problem. This is a great disaster for the environment, marine life and the economy. This could hurt tourism along the Gulf Coast. It's amazing how the administration seems to be so concerned about protecting the environment but nobody has been hurriedly trying to stop this spill. It took approximately eight days after the Deepwater Horizons rig exploded before the administration gave any type of response to this mess.

Capping off the spewing oil and cleaning up this mess will required a concerted effort on the part of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, the Coast Guard, Mineral Management Safety, and possibly the Navy. This is a national emergency that requires immediate attention. Instead of spending time pointing fingers right now, everybody needs to pitch in and stop this oil spill. I know I will sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I believe the government and these oil companies desire to see this situation to get out of hand so they can exploit it. I believe they could've corrected this problem a few weeks ago. They don't care. The government and these oil companies are aligned with one another. Any time you have government and major corporations in bed together, there's always the possibility for something crooked to take place. I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there are evil people in high places. Am I suggesting the rig was sabotaged or this explosion was planned? No. However, I do believe the government and BP are content to allow this spill to continue for as long as possible. This incident will give the federal government an excuse to further clamp down on the American way of li fe. A couple of weeks ago Senators Joe Lieberman and Senator John Kerry introduced climate change legislation in the Senate. They can use this massive oil spill in the gulf as an excuse to hurriedly pass a climate change bill to "protect our planet." This oil spill will be exploited by the government as a means to place further restrictions on American society.

One thing I guarantee you is somebody's going to profit financially from this. They might make money off the backs of the American consumer at the gasoline pump. The American people will be the ones suffering from this incident. This incident will further give environmentalists an excuse to point out that offshore drilling is hazardous to the environment and we can't afford to pursue any kind of offshore drilling. Offshore drilling is only hazardous to the environment when safety measures aren't used on these oil rigs. Why did the shut-off valve on the rig malfunction when the rig exploded? Safety features should be in place in the event of an explosion. I believe a lot of this could've been prevented if there was proper maintenance on these rigs. It doesn't appear the government nor those oil companies responsible for that rig are in any hurry to stop the oil slick. The ones that will be stuck with the bill will be the consumer. This disaster will give the government an excuse to further their agenda in America. It won't be good for our country nor the American people. Finally, I believe this committe to investigate this oil spill will be nothing but a dog-and-pony show. I believe the government and these oil companies are in this together. They're not going to solve the problem from this committe hearing. They're just trying to buy time and give the appearance to the public that they're trying to investigate and solve this problem. What a sham!

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Don't Waste Your Education

The school year will soon be over with. Students from all across the country will be graduating from high school, colleges, universities, etc. Students that have just graduated from high school will be soon entering the next phase of their lives. Some students will be headed to college or a university to obtain a four year degree, others will be headed to vocational school to learn some type of trade to acquire a particular job skill. Some students will head straight into the work force looking for a job in this recession-strapped economy. Whatever field or endeavor these students are looking to engage in, this is a very serious time in the lives of these graduates. They will be making some life-changing choices within the next few months. Many college graduates that have received bachelors and masters degrees will be entering into a bleak job market. Many graduates will have to take a job that doesn't match the degree they've earned. I want to take this time to say to the graduates congratulations for a job well done.

I'm going to gear this particular post to the high school and college graduates that are saved or professing Christians. Those graduates that are saved and are in Christ know the most important thing in life is to know the Lord and glorify Him in all things. Whatever field that you might pursue your responsibility is to glorify God through your occupation. People that we work with should see Jesus in our lives. Many of you have spent thirteen years working to obtain your high school diploma. Others have went on and pursued degrees in higher education. Whatever level of education you've obtained, don't waste the education that you've received. You should use your education for the glory of God. I'm reminded about the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 in which the master gave three men talents and the one man that was given one talent took it and buried it. As a result, the master took that talent and gave it to the man that was the most fruitful with it . We have a serious responsibility to use what God's given to us.

I have two scriptures I'm going to share with you. II Timothy 2:15-16 says, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (Ephesians 4:1) "I THEREFORE, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called." God gives gifts to everyone on earth. Everybody possesses some form of talent. God's purpose for distributing talent to mankind is so that he will one day become saved and use that talent to serve the Lord with. We're to use the talents to serve the Lord not only in the House of God, but in the workforce as well. It's not coincidental that everybody doesn't possess the same interests or talents. Everybody's unique. God has it that way for a reason. Just imagine what life would be like if the only abilities everybody had were in the academic realm and the only type of profession that had workers was the teaching profession. The teaching profession is monumentally important. However, we also have other professions in society that have a need for workers such as the business world, for example. God's gifted people so they can find a vocation which matches their talents and use it to serve the Lord in the job market. God's given people talent to serve in a variety of professions such as the medical field, construction, plumbers, electricians, high technology, the military, the law profession, and the list continues. Whatever field matches your talent, give your very best in that particular field. Perform that job with all your might. We should strive for excellency in the work force. Teachers try to encourage students to excel in academic while in school. When we find a job in the labor force, we should perform it with all our might.

Education doesn't end when we leave high school or college. We always have a need to read to learn new things so we can improve ourselves to make ourselves a greater asset in the workforce and church. Whatever level of education that you've received, don't waste it. Use that education to serve the Lord with it. We should savor opportunities for further learning so we be everything we need to be for the cause of Christ. God says a lot in scripture about business and our work ethic. There's also scriptures about the sluggard. God doesn't have any use for slothfulness. Slothfulness is a poor testimony for a Christian in the workforce.

I need to make a comment concerning women using their education. There are many women that have graduated from college with honors that have made the decision once they are married and bear children, they will quit their jobs so they can stay home to raise their children. There's not a more nobler calling than for a mother to choose to stay home to raise her children. I've heard of many cases where women have felt belittled because they chose to stay home to raise their children than to use their degrees for a high-profile position in a Fortune 500 company, for example. Many mothers have been made to feel that staying home to raise their family is a waste of their education. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Those children they bring into the world will need to be educated. They can put their education into use by teaching their children. Also, there have been numerous stay-at-home mothers that have involved themselves in tutoring students with academic deficiencies. Some stay-at-home mothers have home businesses. There are ways a stay-at-home mother can use her education without working in the labor force. The education they received while in college can be an asset to their children in the future.

I pray and wish the best for all those high school and college graduates. The most important responsibility you have is to glorify God. Use your education to serve and glorify the Lord. There have been some fundamental churches that place a high emphasis on external separation that have not placed the proper emphasis on educating the children in their respective churches. There's nothing spiritual about being ignorant. If the only thing you know is the Bible, then you'll be limited on the type of people you can reach for Christ with a lack of education. First of all, I'm not belittling the importance of reading and knowing your Bible. The Holy Bible is the most important book of all. We should study to show ourselves approved and thoroughly furnished. A child of God doesn't help their cause if they're not versed in scripture. However, a child of God doesn't help their cause if they aren't educated in other areas in life. You will have a difficult time in landing a job if you don't possess some form of training or education. It's a great testimony for a Christian to be well-educated in a broad spectrum. You can't place a premium on it. Education should be a lifelong process. There's always something we can learn in life. Don't waste what you've acquired throughout your educational history. Use that education to be an influence on somebody's life. Use it for the glory of God!

Friday, May 21, 2010

Founder's Friday: Revisionist History

Today on the Glenn Beck Fox News program he featured "Revisionist History." He was speaking about how history has been changed fitting the viewpoint of the Progressives. I enjoyed his program. The last several years there's been a revision of U.S. history. America was founded on Judeo Christian principles. Our Pilgrim and Puritan forefathers came to this country for the purposes of the freedom to worship God as they chose. They didn't want to see a church run state like that of England which had the Church of England and the state aligned together. The Pilgrims came and signed the Mayflower Compact. They had dedicated America to God and they established the Massachusetts colony on the Word of God. The Puritans came to Massachusetts in 1630 and built a "city on a hill". The Puritans had a deep respect for the things of God. I didn't agree with some of their theology but the Puritans that originally came to America had a desire to follow the precepts of God and to raise their children on the Word of God. Whenever you read historians mentioning about the Puritans they're casted in a negative light as being intolerant of other religions as well as being opposed to Christmas. It's true that the Puritans were excessive in how they handled some situations, but I believe they had a heart to live for God. As far as the Puritans views on Christmas, their opposition to the holiday was simply because Christmas wasn't celebrated as a family holiday. It wasn't about the birthday of Jesus. They were opposed to Christmas because Christmas was about drunkeness and wild living. There was nothing wholesome about the celebration of Christmas during that time.

Following the Civil War, the secular humanist viewpoint started holding sway in many of our institutions of higher learning. The law schools used to teach law based on the Bible. The law schools in America until the late nineteenth century used to teach William Blackstone's "Commentary on Law". Since that time, law schools presented the secular humanist viewpoint which promoted the theory of "sociological law." Sociological law taught that law can be made to fit the whims of the judges according to the times and the situation. In other words the philosophy of moral relativism held sway in their thinking. Laws can be made according to what the judges wearing their black robes deem best. In other words, law had no firm foundation. Law was no longer based upon the Bible. Law became arbitrary. Also the Darwinian theory of evolution was being taught in America's universities at the time. Many corporations were incorporating Darwinian evolution to justify their ruthless business practices. The precepts of the Bible were being cast aside and rejected by the institutions of higher learning. The Progressive movement started taking shape in the late nineteenth century. Glenn Beck has been tracing the Progressive Movement early in the 20th century and showing how today's elected elite still embrace Progressive ideas. The Progressive Movement believes in the notion that the U.S. Constitution is flawed and that they must disregard it when it comes to the laws of our nation. The Progressives believe in "big government" and that the government knows better how to run the private sector than private businesses do. The Progressives seek to intrude on every aspect of a person's life. We've seen how the federal government has dramatically grown since the Great Depression. The government continues growing regardless the party affiliation of a particular president. The federal government has grown under George W. Bush like it's growing under President Obama. It makes no difference. Under the Progressives we've had the creation of the Federal Reserve, the income tax amendment, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the list continues. The government continues reaching its tentacles into every aspect of our lives.

Many historians today uphold a secular humanist point of view when it comes to history. Instead of giving credit to God who created this world and the universe in an orderly fashion, they subscribe to evolutionary forces shaping society. When you read U.S. history in our public school textbooks, you won't read much about how Christianity shaped our nation in its early history. When went to high school, I never read anything about such movements as the Great Awakening or about the influence of some preachers as Jonathon Edwards or George Whitfield, for example. You won't read about how religion influenced our Founding Fathers such as George Washington, for examples. Today's historian will give you the impression our Founding Fathers were racist due in part because many of them owned slaves. I believe from everything I've read they had a desire for slavery to eventually become extinct. At the time when our country was being forged, they were interested in trying to pass the Constitution. They felt that the abolition of slavery would eventually take place. It did but it took a bloody Civil War for that to come to pass.

When you read about the Great Depression, many historians give you the impression that President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the country. However, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt's treasury secretary, said that Roosevelt's New Deal worsened the Depression. What helped pull this nation out of the Depression was the United States entering into World War II. The creation of government jobs and work relief programs aren't the answer in pulling this country out of the Depression. The only way the economy will recover is when the private sector starts hiring again. Prosperity comes through the private sector, not the government. It would be a great lesson for the Obama administration to learn. I could devote more time to other areas in history that have been revised. However, this is just a small sample of some of the efforts that our historians have been involved with in trying to revise history to fit their humanist viewpoint.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Republicans Who Run on the Platform of Family Values Must Practice Family Values

(USA Today) Rep. Mark Souder, R-IN, announced Tuesday that he was going to resign after acknowledging an affair with a female aide. Souder, a supposed religious conservative elected as part of the 1994 Republican takeover of both House and Senate, said he "sinned against God, my wife, and my family" by having what he described as a mutal relationship with a part-time staffer. "In the poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon . . . for political gain, Souder stated. He said he wanted to avoid putting his family "through that painful drawn-out process." Souder stated he plans to formally submit his letter of resignation to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) spoke to Souder a day before the announcement, according to a Boehner aide. Souder, 59, is the second member of Congress to resign this year amid scandal. Rep. Eric Massa, D-NY, left in March after allegations of inappropriate behavior with a male staffer which became public. Senator John Ensign, R-NV, is under investigation from a Senate ethics panel who admitted to having an affair with the wife of a former top aide. Souder had survived a hard-fought primary this month, just capturing 48% of the month. There will be a special election in Indiana to replace Souder but Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels hasn't set a special election date yet.

I was viewing Jim Sumpter's website and he had a picture of Souder on the web. Sumpter, who hosts the Jim Sumpter show Monday-Friday from 12:00 - 2:00 p.m. EST, made the statement that there needs to be mandatory drug testing in Congress. I happen to agree with that. Many of our Senators and Congressmen are undboutedly under some type of substance. Many in Congress drink and I'm certain there's probably some that take drugs and we're not aware of it. With some of the strange behavior in Congress, there's a great possibility that some of them are under the influence of some type of substance. However, the problem I have with many Republicans that give lip service to moral and conservative values is just exactly that--lip service. They don't practice what they preach. We've already had incidents from Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina who has been having an adulterous affair with his mistress from Argentina. I remember back in 2006 when former Senator Larry Craig, R-ID was in the restroom in an airport being suggestive in the restroom stall. It was called the bathroom sex scandal. It's crooked, immoral, and depraved. I do recognize that we are human and nobody is above committing fornication or adultery. I don't desire to be self-righteous about it. However, if these Republicans are going to run for public office and run on the platform of family and Christian values, then the life they live needs to be examplary before all. We don't need hypocrisy in the Republican Party, esp. in the name of Christian values. That just further alienates the voter and their desire to vote. It's people like Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, and Mark Souder who will discourage some voters from voting. The conservative base already can't trust the Democratic Party. When those Republicans that hold the mantle of family and Christian values betray their constituents' trust in them, the voters don't know who to turn to.

As a result of the actions of Mark Souder, Larry Craig, and Mark Sanford, to name a few, there have been voters that have voted Democrat in protest. A large part of the reason why we have President Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress is due to the fradulent Republicans that have been in charge of both Houses of Congress as well as former President Bush. The Republicans were disgraceful when they had leadership control of Congress. They deserved to lose. There are numerous Republicans that are presently serving in Congress who served when they held the majority that need to be voted out in the primary. All counterfeit Republicans that are up for re-election need to be voted out by Republican voters in the remaining nationwide primaries. I know there are some Republicans that didn't run their campaign on the mantle of family values. The Republicans that I'm primarily addressing are those that gave the false impression to the voters that they were socially, morally, and fiscally conservative. Those Republican frauds need to exit as quickly as possible. Thankfully, Utah Senator Bob Bennett was voted out in the primary a few weeks ago. There are several more that need to be voted out.

I have a word to those Republican candidates that run on the mantle of family values. Your life must demonstrate that you believe in family values. It's much more than granting lip service to the voters. Don't fool the voter and pretend you're pro-family and you're unfaithful to your spouse. You're defeating your purpose in running if you aren't going to be consistent in your lifestyle. A person must practice what they preach. Our country is in deep trouble. President Obama and the Democratic Party are working overtime to transform America into a socialist country. They already have control over the banks, General Motors and Chrysler, and now the healthcare industry. The last thing we need are fradulent Republicans that aren't going to stand true to the values they claim to uphold. We need to vote out the incumbents in Congress which are on both sides of the aisle. Fradulent Republican candidates will discourage voters from voting out the incumbents. We can't afford this in the hour in which we live.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The Results of Tuesday's Primary Elections

(USA Today) I haven't as of yet ever covered the results of a primary election in any state this year. I did cover the results of the general election in Virginia, New Jersey, and the special election in New York. Today I'm covering the primary elections that took place in Kentucky, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. The reason for this is that I live in Kentucky, which is one of the states that held primary elections yesterday. I worked in the polls in Kentucky's election. I enjoy the privilege to serve in the elections in some facet. There were local races in my hometown such as County Judge Executive, city and county commissioners, and races in the Kentucky state legislature. All the U.S. House seats in Kentucky are up for re-election. There is a U.S. Senate seat that's open due to U.S. Senator Jim Bunning deciding to not run for re-election. In that race Rand Paul , son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul and a Tea Party favorite, won the Republican nomination over Secretary of State Trey Grayson very handily. Jack Conway won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate race. He narrowily defeated Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo. Mongiardo was the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2004 where he narrowly lost to Jim Bunning. In the second Congressional district, U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie received no opposition in the Republican primary. He is running for his second term as Congressman.

There were more incumbents in the list that were voted out in the primary. Republican turned Democrat Arlen Specter was ousted by Congressman Joe Sestak. Thank the Lord for that. I remember one time at a Senate judiciary committee hearing for a Supreme Court candidate, Specter called the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision as a "super-duper precedent." I classify Sestak's victory over Specter as a "super-duper victory". It was super-duper good that Specter lost this race. He lost his bid for a sixth term in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. Sestak beat Obama's candidate with the help of liberal Democratic groups such as MoveOn.org and Democracy for America. Specter promised to support Sestak to keep the Democrats in power in November. Specter was elected as a Republican in 1980 under Ronald Reagan's coattails. Specter bolted from the Republican Party last year because he felt he would have a better chance of winning if he ran as a Democrat. He was wrong! There was a special election held in Pennsylvania's 12th district. Mark Critz, an aide to the late Democratic Congressman John Murtha, defeated Republican Tim burns, who had hoped to capture the seat that Murtha for 36 years. John Murtha died of complications from gall bladder surgery on February 8. Murtha was chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Burns, who won as a Washington outsider, won the GOP bid bid Tuesday. Both Critz and Burns will face each other for a full two-year term in the fall.

In Arkansas, Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln at Lt. Governor Bill Halter will be headed to a June 8 run-off after neither candidate secured 50% of the vote. Halter has criticized Lincoln for her positions on healthcare. It was good to see the voters in these states are waking up to the fact that there must be a change of leadership. It's great that Sestak defeated Specter. I hope that in the June 8 run-off Halter will defeat Lincoln. Voters of both parties need to defeat their incumbents in the primaries. The time for choosing candidates is in the state primaries. It's too late to wait until the general election when all that's left is the lesser of two evils and neither candidate is worth ten cents. There's a better chance of choosing a more quality candidate in the primary. Voters in both parties in the remainder of the states need to vote in droves and vote out their incumbents. If there is any chance we can rattle things in Washington, we must do it by voting out the vast majority of incumbents on both sides of the aisle.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Only One Gospel

(Galatians 1:6-12, 21) "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then christ is dead in vain." The Apostle Paul was addressing the issue of the gospel to the church of Galatia. The Judaizers came in and were trying to pervert the gospel by adding the ceremonial law to it. The Judaizers were guilty of legalism, which is adding works to grace. The Apostle Paul and the other early apostles were preaching a salvation which was by grace through faith. Instead, the Judaizers were adding aspects of the Mosaic law to the gospel. The Apostle Paul had to address that issue to the Galatians. Paul addressed the issue of faith and the law and mentioned what was the purpose of the law. Galatians 3:11 declares that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God. It is evident that the just shall live by faith. Paul stated in Galatians in 3:24 that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. What does that mean? The law has no ability to save sinful man. All the law does is reveal who we are. It reveals we're dead in trespasses and sins. The law is perfect but no man is justified simply because man's dead in sins and trespasses. No flesh can be justified by the law. Then grace comes and says look to Jesus. If you will repent of your sins and look to the finished work of Christ and accept what Jesus did for you on Calvary, you will be redeemed and justified. You are freed from the curse of the law.

In this day in which we're living, there are all kinds of people walking this planet that are spiritually ignorant. People don't know the Bible or its truths. Many people don't understand the concept of "sin" and that they transgressed the law. If you ask them who Jesus is, they will identify him as a historic figure who lived a perfect life but don't know what his purpose was in coming to this earth. In many of the denominations in America, there are all kinds of teachings in regards to how a person can be saved. The Catholic Church teaches a man could be saved through good works. The Church of Christ advocates water baptism or baptismal regeneration to save a person's soul. Some Independent Baptists have taught a person could be saved by simply repeating a prayer with no repentance. There have been people that have been saved repeating a prayer, but they weren't saved as a result of that prayer. It wasn't the words itself that saved them. It was repentance and trusting in God from the heart. Repeating a prayer means nothing if there's no repentance upon the individual praying the prayer. Some Independent Baptist preachers preach "hyperevangelism", which teaches that a sinner could be saved without repentance. Hyperevangelism promotes evangelistic methods which tries to force sinners to pray a prayer without the drawing of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Baptist churches like to do that so they can publicize it in a periodical and boast of the number of sinners that have been "saved."

I believe Freewill Baptists teach a general calling to salvation. In other words a sinner can come to Christ anytime they desire apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit. However, John 6:44 says a person can't be saved unless the spirit of God draws them. The spirit of God must woo the heart of a sinner and show them their need. A person can't be saved apart from the drawing of the Holy Spirit. God does say in scripture "whosoever will". However, salvation is personal and specific. It takes the drawing of the Holy Spirit to show that individual their need for Christ. A sinner can read the New Testament and learn about the plan of salvation for them. However, the Holy Spirit must make it real to them individually that they've sinned and transgressed God and their only hope is to come to Christ. Reading words in the Bible alone won't accomplish the task. That will plant a seed in the sinner's heart. However, the Spirit must use those words to convict the sinner. The Holy Spirit must perform the work of conviction. The convicting power of the Holy Spirit is the only thing that can convey to the sinner their need. God's ways are far above man's ways. We have a responsibility to carry the gospel to the sinner. However, the Holy Spirit must do the rest in the case of converting sinners.

It's tragic how many religions try to confuse the sinners the correct way to salvation. That's the trick of the Devil to blind people. Throughout the early church there were religious groups preaching doctrines that were damnable heresies. Preaching a gospel which tampers with salvation is damnable heresey. That's why the Apostle Paul told the Galatians if anyone preaches any other gospel than what they have received, then let them be accursed. He repeated that twice. That's serious. Accursed means "damnation". A person that poses as a preacher that preaches another path to salvation is preaching damnable heresy. That person is to be cursed to hell. God has no tolerance for those that pervert the gospel. There have been many that have frustrated that gospel and have made it more difficult than it should be. Salvation is simple. God didn't add a lot of rules to complicate salvation. That's man's teaching. The problem many sinners have is when it comes to repentance. There are sins that many sinners don't want to forsake. That's why salvation may seem difficult in their eyes. However, there's no special ceremony, prayer, ritual, creed or anything that needs to be added to salvation. Salvation is only by grace through faith upon repentance by the sinner. If a sinner will forsake their sinful ways and trust in Jesus, then they will be saved. Salvation is of the Lord. Only God receives the glory. Man cannot share in the glory.

In Galatians 1:21 The Apostle Paul stated that if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. What would be the purpose in the propagation of the gospel to the whole world if man could achieve his salvation? Why spend all kinds of untold dollars spreading the gospel if there were multiple paths to salvation? It would be futile. Christ died because that's the only way man could be saved. There had to be a perfect spotless lamb to take our place in order to atone for sin. That's what Jesus did on Calvary. As a result, there's only one gospel to proclaim. Throughout the ages, many religions have added Old Testament rituals when it comes to salvation. The Catholic Church has priests in their diocese. Parishoners will come and confess their sins to the priest for forgiveness. That's unnecessary. When Jesus died on Calvary, He became our High Priest. The earthly priesthood was abolished when Jesus died on Calvary. The only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life and no man cometh to the Father but by me." That's clear-cut. It's only one gospel. Any other gospel is damnable heresy.

YouTube - David Horowitz at UCSD 5/10/2010. Hosted by Young Americans for Freedom and DHFC

YouTube - David Horowitz at UCSD 5/10/2010. Hosted by Young Americans for Freedom and DHFC

David Horowitz, who was once a 60's leftist radical and is now a conservative, was speaking at the University of California San Diego on May 10 in a question and answer session. There was a young Muslim college student asking him a question and Horowitz turned the question around and asked her does she support the terrorist group Hamas? After a few rounds she finally admitted that she supported Hamas. It would be startling if we knew how many Muslims in America had that same frame of mind as that college student does.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Background Behind "Holy Spirit Thou Art Welcome in this Place"

YouTube - Dottie Rambo Home-Going-1 - Holy Spirit Thou Art Welcome

Dottie Rambo probably penned this song sometime in the early 70's. During that time she and her family (The Rambos: Buck, Dottie, and Reba) had the opportunity to sing behind the Iron Curtain. When they sang in that area they were instructed they couldn't tell or mention to anyone anything about Jesus, the blood of Jesus, or salvation. They could sing all their songs they normally sing, but they couldn't say anything about Jesus in-between songs. One evening following their concert, their organizer decided to send them to a local bistro not far from where they're staying. Dottie noticed when she was outside how dark, dreary, and oppressive the spirit was in that area behind the Iron Curtain. Dottie had purposed in her heart to find someone in the restaurant that may know Jesus so she could encourage them. She was told she couldn't mention Jesus at the restaurant. Dottie had a pamphlet with Psalms 23 on one side and Jesus with a little lamb on his shoulder on the other side. She had it in the palm of her hand and the waitress came by her table and saw it and the waitress mentioned Jesus's name and said she loved him. The people at her table were scared and were fearful they could be arrested. They immediately left and as she was walking outside she was thinking to herself, "Nobody here may want Jesus, but you're wanted 'here'". She was speaking in reference to her heart. Hence, the song was birthed by the time she had went into the van that evening. Many people when they sing that song misinterpret that Dottie was making reference to being welcome in the churches. Dottie was making reference to an individual's own heart. I was thinking about the different places where we as Christians should desire the Holy Spirit to be. First of all, we should desire for the sinner to repent so the Holy Spirit could take abode in their hearts. We should welcome the Holy Spirit to work in our lives as Christians like he so desires. Lastly, we should desire for the Holy Spirit to be welcome and have his way within the confines of the local church. I believe if the Holy Spirit is welcome to work within our lives like he should, it will spill over into the church.

Holy Spirit Thou art welcome in this place
Holy Spirit Thou art welcome in this place
Omnipotent Father of Mercy and Grace
Thou art welcome in this place

Lord in Thy presence there's healing divine
No other power can save Lord, but Thine
Holy Spirit Thou art welcome in this place
Thou art welcome in this place

Holy Spirit Thou art welcome in this place
Holy Spirit Thou art welcome in this place
Omnipotent Father of Mercy and Grace
Thou art welcome in this place

Fill all the hungry and empty within
Restore us, oh Father revive us again
Holy Spirit Thou art welcome in this place
Holy Spirit Thou Art welcome in this place

Friday, May 14, 2010

Founders Friday: George Whitefield

Today Glenn Beck will be hosting Founder's Friday once again on his program on Fox News network. The previous two Fridays he was featuring two of our famous Founding Fathers which were Samuel Adams and George Washington. On today's program the topic will be about the famous preacher in North America whose name was George Whitefield. He was a major force in the First Great Awakening in 1740. He and other preachers such as Jonathon Edwards preached to untold crowds in North America. There was a wave of revival that blew into America and transformed the country. Whitefield was not a Founding Father but he was considered as a seed in encouraging what would eventually be the American Revolution. He died six years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1770. Let's take a quick look at this great preacher.

George Whitefiled was born on December 16, 1714, in Gloucester, England. He was the youngest of seven children born in the Bell Inn where his father, Thomas was a wine merchant and innkeeper. His father died when George was two and his widowed mother Elizabeth struggled to provide for the family. He had a passion for the theatre at a young age and enjoyed acting. Because he thought he would never make much use of his education, at age 15 Whitefield persuaded his mother to allow him to leave school and work in the inn. However, George became a diligent student of the Bible staying up late at night. A visit to his mother by an Oxford student who worked his way through college encouraged George to pursue a university education. He returned to grammar school to finish his preparation to enter Oxford. In 1732 at age 17 George entered Pembroke College at Oxford. He was gradually drawn into a group called the "Holy Club" where he met John and Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley loaned him the book, "The Life of God in the Soul of Man." After a long and painful struggle in reading the book, George was converted in 1735. He said many years later: "I know the place . . . Whenever I go to Oxford, I cannot help running to the spot where Jesus Christ first revealed himself to me and gave me the new birth." He was forced to leave school because of poor health. He had returned home for nine months to recuperate.

During the time he was home, he wasn't idle. He stayed busy. His activity attracted the attention of the bishop of Gloucester, England. The bishop ordained Whitefield as a deacon, and later as a priest, in the church of England. Whitefield finished his degree at Oxford on June 20, 1736. Bishop Benson ordained him. Whitefield declared that "My heart was melted down and I offered my whole spirit, soul, and body to the service of God's sanctuary." He was an outstanding preacher at the beginning. He was slender-built but he stormed the pulpit as if he were a giant. Within a year it was said that "his voice startled England like a trumpet blast." He first took to preaching in the open air in Hanham Mount, Kingswood and in Southeast Bristol.

At a time when London had a population of less than 700,000, he could hold spellbound 20,000 people at a time at Moorfields and Kennington Common. For thirty-four years his preaching resounded throughout England and America. In his preaching ministry, he visited America seven times and crossed the Atlantic 13 times and became known as the "apostle of the British Empire. At that time crossing the Atlantic was considered a dangerous voyage. There were no such things as airplanes where people could fly across the ocean like they can today. He was a firm Calvinist in his theology. Though a clergyman of the Church of England, he cooperated with and had a profound impact on people and churches of many traditions such as Baptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. Whitefield, along with the Wesleys, inspired the movement that became known as the Methodists. He preached more than 18,000 sermons in his lifetime, which averages to around 500 a year or ten a week.

In 1736 George Whitefield became parish priest in Savannah, Georgia. He also pushed for laws to legalize slavery in Georgia. He had established a charity called the Bethesda Orphanage in 1739. He felt that the town would never be developed without the help of slave labor. He himself even owned slaves and treated his slaves well. He used his slaves to work at the Bethesday Orphanage. It was said that he grieved over how slaves were treated by their owners because some slaves were treated very harshly. That would seem odd to many "civil rights" leaders today. Back them many people in that era thought that slavery was justifiable. The reason why that was so was probably because the Bible addressed the relationship between slaves and their masters. Therefore, many whites probably thought slavery was justifiable. Whitefield was also a close friend to Benjamin Franklin, one of our Founding Fathers. Many historians have portrayed Franklin as being some type of skepticist when it comes to religion. Franklin believed in God but was skeptical of traditional Christianity. Franklin would go listen to Whitefield preach in Philadelphia and Franklin marveled how Whitefield could deliver a message.

In 1740 Whitefield started preaching a series of revivals in the North American colonies. It would be called the "Great Awakening". He would preach to crowds of thousands in open air. Many people were converted as a result of his preaching. His preaching and influence would help later sow the seeds for the American Revolution. Whitefield died in 1770. Phillis Wheatley, a black poet, wrote a poem in tribute of George Whitefield. He was buried at Newburyport, Massachusetts.