Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Good Morning is Wednesday, December 15, 2010...

So many things to comment on...

We learned the other day that the President's wife, who seems to be on mission to make sure that everyone eats healthily (and nothing inherently wrong with that), has now stated that the children of america must be watched over by the government because "We just can't leave it to the parents"...Yes, you heard that correctly...The President's wife does not trust moms and dads across America to feed their children with healthy food...Unbelievable...speaking of health...A federal Judge in Virginia has ruled that the Obamacare legislation is unconstitutional...the idea that the government can require a person to buy health insurance in order to be a citizen of the United States is unbelieveable...One of the arguments FOR this legislation is comparing it to auto insurance, where most states require people to have auto insurance in order to drive on the states roads...however, you don't have to purchase auto insurance to be a citizen of the state, just to drive a car...some places like New York City have people who have never even had a drivers license, much less a car and auto insurance, so the comparison is not valid...
The new tax deal that is working its way through is this bill going to add to the deficit? The reality is that by not raising taxes, the Status Quo is maintained...its not like the taxes were cut, although a tax cut will spur economic growth and actually INCREASE revenues...The problem with small businesses not hiring people is the uncertainty with the tax issue...when government increases the taxes on small businesses, they respond by hiring less people and making less investments...

Finally...The Christmas Season reminds us that "In the Fullness of Time" God intervened into human history by sending His One and Only Son into this world to redeem mankind...Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life...He was put to death on a cruel Roman Cross, shedding his precious blood to pay the penalty for our sin and he rose again on the third day from the dead!...The Bible tells us that if we will believe that he is God's Son, that He died for our sin, that He rose from the dead and repent of our sin, God will save us! The Bible says that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" That includes me and you my friends; however, in His grace, God will save us if we repent and believe...If you have any questions about this, please comment or leave a question here...
God Bless You!

Monday, December 6, 2010


Thanks to all the Readers!

Recently, I discovered the "stats" section from blogspot...I know, I know, I should have realized a long time ago that stats are monitored...anyway, I have discovered that these ramblings of mine have been read from Russia to Australia! Wow! I am humbled...I just want to say thank you for those of you who are reading the blog...don't be afraid to leave me a comment or even ask a question...I would love to dialogue!

Thanks again!

The Eternality of Jesus Christ

Good Morning...

In this Christmas season (Merry Christmas Everyone!) We are reminded that God intervened into this world in the "Fullness of Time" and sent forth His only Son to die for our sins and pay the penalty for that sin and opening the way back to God the Father...many people believe that Jesus was a good "Man", with the emphasis on the word "Man"...they doubt that Jesus has always existed. Jack Van Impe writes an excellent article that shows that Jesus has always been around and always will be! I trust that you will enjoy...

The Birth of the Eternal God
I feel that there is a tremendous need to enlighten mankind as to the true identity of Christ. Multitudes think of the Saviour as just another member of the human race born nearly 2,000 years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this chapter, I clearly want to trace the preexistence of Christ to prove that He was "the Eternal God" who became man, in order that He might die for poor, helpless, hopeless sinners. I also want to show that His birth had to be through the channels of a virgin, inseminated by the power of the Holy Spirit, if His sacrifice for sinners was to be effective.
Christ's preexistence
The altogether lovely One, born in Bethlehem's manger, existed from all eternity. The verse that prophesies His exact birthplace also tells of His preexistence. Micah 5:2: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Isaiah masterfully handles this truth in chapter 9, verse 6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Let's analyze this verse for a moment. Notice that a child is born (this speaks of the Lord's birth), but the next phrase mentions a son being given. This speaks about God sending the Son who was in His presence and coincides with Galatians 4:4, When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son. Then Isaiah goes on to proclaim this Son as God by the titles "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father." These terms are possible because of the relationship of the Trinity. Remember that Jesus said in John 10:30, I and my Father are one.
John opens his gospel with the statement, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:1-3). In verse 14, he identifies this member of the Trinity who is called the "Word." And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Think of it. This One who was in the beginning with God and was God became flesh and lived among insignificant human beings because of His love for sinners.
Yes, Christ always existed and came from heaven to earth. Listen to His numerous statements verifying this truth: For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world (John 6:33). I am the living bread which came down from heaven (John 6:51). Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world (John 8:23). I proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42). I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world (John 16:28).
In His high priestly prayer, Jesus said, I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was (John 17:4,5). Jesus said in John 5:46, Moses...wrote of me. Here Christ delves back hundreds of years to the first five books of the Bible, called "The Pentateuch," and states that Moses mentioned Him. This is important because Moses recorded these words centuries before the birth of Christ. Jesus also said in John 8:56, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. How could Abraham see His day centuries before His birth if there were no preexistent One?
Oh, friend, Jesus always existed as a coequal member of the Trinity. Don't listen to a group of blinded cultists who would rob Christ of His deity, but hear the Word of the Lord. His preexistence is also proven through the Bible statements indicating that He created the world. John 1:3: All things were made by him. John 1:10: He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Colossians 1:16: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. Hebrews 1:2 states, By whom also he made the worlds.
The part Christ had in creating the world and mankind agrees with the Old Testament account of creation. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1). The Hebrew for God is Elohim, a plural noun, meaning "more than one." This is a glorious declaration of the Trinity. You don't believe it? What will you do with Genesis 1:26? And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
We have but skimmed the surface of evidence that proves that Christ preexisted His earthly birth. Now let's move on to the glorious truth of His coming to earth via the channel of a virgin's womb. At this point let's consider Philippians 2:5-8 because it is such a glorious transitional passage. It brings the eternal God from heaven to a bodily appearance upon earth so that He might die for sinners. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men . Why? Verse 8: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Christ's virgin birth
Lost religionists mock the virgin birth. In an issue of the magazine Challenge, a number of sickening articles and poems appeared. I quote one of them to show the world how far liberal modernistic religionists will go in their attempt to rob Christ of His deity. It is a poem about Mary, the mother of Jesus. In the poem she says:
First, I've got nothing to say-about anything that happened before Joseph and I got married. Jesus was our child. Joseph's and mine. You can believe it or not. Suit yourself. He was my first born so naturally I thought he was something special. So, he's the Messiah they say. I'd rather he had stayed a carpenter, married a nice Jewish girl and given me a lot of fat little grandchildren.
What blasphemy! This is the prophecy of the Apostle Peter fulfilled before our eyes. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privity shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of (2 Peter 2:1,2).
Yes, the way of truth is often evil spoken of because of ordained wolves in sheep's clothing who call themselves members of the "Christian faith" and yet would tear Christ to shreds if the opportunity presented itself. The crucifixion would be mild in comparison to what some of our lost seminary professors would do to Jesus if they had the chance in this twentieth century. However, let's not waste our time on man's drivel but instead invest it wisely as we listen to the Word of God concerning the truth about the virgin birth.
A virgin birth was necessary because Adam sinned. Since Adam was the head of the human race, every person born into it through natural generation or through the process of birth inherits the old sinful Adamic nature. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12). Yes, all sinned or became guilty of sin simply by inheriting the fallen nature of Adam at birth. Quirks and diseases are passed on from generation to generation. Sugar diabetes is a prime example. Likewise, the sin nature is passed on to every generation. Romans 5:18 is another verse that clearly teaches the necessity of a virgin birth. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Notice that judgment came upon all men unto condemnation because of Adam's sin, but through the righteousness of Christ one may be liberated from this judgment. It is only logical to conclude that if Christ had come through the normal channels of reproduction, He would have also been born with this judgment of condemnation upon Him because He also would have inherited Adam's sinful nature. Therefore, in order that He might set men free from this condemnation, He had to be born in another manner so as not to be tainted with the old wicked nature of Adam.
There was only one way this possibility existed and that was through a virgin birth-bypassing man through insemination of the virgin's ova by the Holy Spirit. This ova lies dormant in every woman until it is activated by a male sperm. Gasoline is also dormant until activated by a spark. Is it an impossibility for the God, who formed man out of the dust of the ground and took a rib out of man to form woman, to place the activating seed within this holy virgin and bring forth His Son through the miracle-working power of His Holy Spirit? Of course not. This is exactly what the Father did. Hear the Word of God.
The very first messianic prophecy is found in Genesis 3:15. There we hear the Lord God uttering a prophecy against the serpent, saying, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [the woman's seed] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. The statement, "her seed," is the first reference to the virgin birth in God's Word. All humans are from the seed of man, but the seed of a woman implies a stupendous miracle. Jeremiah 31:22 again speaks of a miraculous event that would occur upon this earth. For the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.
A woman conceiving and bearing a man-child would not be a new thing in the earth-this is the rule of life. After conception, one bears a male or female child. Therefore this entirely new thing that would transpire had to be a miracle. What was it? A woman, without any human intervention or penetration, would conceive, carry, and deliver a man-child. This happened to be the Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world. Isaiah 7:14 again sheds light on this event of the ages. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah is not merely referring to a young woman giving birth to a son. That would not be a sign. Millions of young women have been able to bear sons. The sign is that a virgin shall bear a son without an act of intercourse.
Forget the arguments of the religious contortionists who argue that the Hebrew word almah is "young woman" instead of "virgin." All one need do is study Matthew 1:23 where the Greek word parthenos can only be translated "virgin" to arrive at a final answer. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Verse 22 states that this is a quotation from the prophet. What prophet? Isaiah. And where did Isaiah make the statement? Chapter 7, verse 14. So, the Greek text handles the Old Testament Hebrew text proving that God meant a "virgin" and not a "young woman."
I repeat what was stated earlier: A young woman bearing a child would be no sign. Any of you young expectant mothers reading this would be the first to realize this truth. However, had you become impregnated miraculously by the power of God without knowing a man, it would very obviously be a sign. That happened to Mary and only to Mary.
The reason that God the Son, originally in spirit form (see Philippians 2:5), had to have an earthly birth is found in Hebrews 10:4,5. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not , but a body hast thou prepared me. Since animal blood only covered sin and was presented as a down payment for sin's debt until God's Lamb should come, Christ had a body with divine blood prepared in the womb of a virgin so that He could shed that blood and die for the sins of the world. Because it had to be pure blood, free from the taint of Adam's sin, the body and blood were prepared by the Father and placed in the womb of the virgin Mary.
Luke 1:26-28,30,31,34 depicts this thrilling story: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.... Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
This is a precious truth. Though she was espoused or engaged to Joseph, she had not known a man or experienced premarital sex. Remember that God wrote the Bible, and He declares that Mary was a pure virgin. Away with the mentally warped, religious hypocrites who are so defiled that they imagine all sorts of depraved things about this sweet virgin. Not everyone thinks and acts as they do. Mary declares, "I have never known a man-how shall this baby be conceived?" The blessed answer is found in verse 35: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Anyone who believes that God created this gigantic, fantastic, and astronomical universe certainly believes that God can bring His only begotten Son into the world by a separate act of creation. With God nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1:37).
There is the entire story. The preexistent God, second member of the Trinity, came to take upon himself a body with blood so as to shed His blood for sinners. The sin-tainted blood inherited from Adam would not qualify Him as the sinless Saviour, so a body was prepared with blood produced by the Father, and placed into the womb of a virgin by the blessed Holy Spirit. Christ eventually went to the cross and shed His blood. Because He was the God-man shedding untainted holy blood, mankind may have eternal life by receiving this sacrifice. Believe the Word of God-see Christ crucified and risen again. Receive this Christ today.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Just Couldn't Resist!

Good Morning...

I trust that as you are getting ready to go to Sunday School and Church, that you will remember that the Christmas season reminds us that God intervened into this world in "The Fullness of Time" to redeem us from our sin!

By the way....Warrrrrrr Eagleeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13-0 SEC Champs! (Just Couldn't Resist!)

By the way...if you know of a high schooler who is contemplating where they might attend college...Might I suggest:

Truett/McConnell...located in beautiful Cleveland, Georgia! Check out the following link:

Truett-McConnell College is a liberal arts, distinctively Christian institution that seeks to impact the next generation and, indeed, the world. Here, we are not simply a college; we are a family brought together by the grace of Christ.

Have a blessed day!

Monday, November 8, 2010

Election Aftermath...


The election is now over...what do the results mean? Well, for the Democrats, it was a staggering loss in the House but they retained their majority in the Senate...there are some important questions to ask:

1) Why would California vote for the Liberals who have nearly destroyed the most populous state in the union? Yes Arnold, a Republican, has been the Governor for sometime, yet he was a RINO (Republican In Name Only)...
2) Where was the outrage when members of the Jerry Brown campaign called Meg Whitman a "whore"?
3) How in the world did Harry Reid win? I like to believe that he just had more supporters, but with all the union activity in the days leading up to the election, who knows?
4) Christine O'Donnell...I watched one of the debates and the opponent along with the moderators treated her as if she had just gotten off the boat or something...They were rude, crude and sociably was an embarrassment to watch...they should all be ashamed of themselves...
5) In the election aftermath, the President said we just don't get it...we don't see the progress...the only progress is progress for those who follow his agenda, which leaves about 80% of the country out in the cold...

In the short run, Obama has been checked, but the Republicans can do very little either...any bill they pass will probably not pass the Senate, and the President would likely veto any bill anyway...

So, I guess the election was a wash, neither side gaining a distinct advantage over the other...
But my biggest disappointment is reserved for the citizens of Columbus, Georgia where I fellow citizens put Sanford Bishop back in Congress... a man who has shown his total disdain for his constituents and enriched his own family...A man who is willing to kill babies all for the sake of choice...a man who does not concern himself with the nuances of following the Constitution (see health-care bill)...and yes, we put him over the disappointed...

But the bright side is that God is still in Control! And in Him there is always hope!

Friday, September 10, 2010

To Burn or Not to Burn...That is the Question

Well I guess we have us a fine mess that has been brewing in Gainsville, Florida...everyone and their brother have piled on Pastor Jones for his idea of burning copies of the Koran, known by Muslims as THE Holy Book, in response to the building of the Mosque in New York in close proximity to Ground Zero...I have seen Pastor Jones called a hate monger among other names...where do I stand on this issue?

1) I don't believe that Pastor Jones should burn the copies of the Koran, but for far different reasons than everyone else has been citing...People have said that this is something that Jesus would not do...I wonder...In Isaiah 44, 45, & 46 show us that God says that He is God and there is no other...In Matthew 21, we find where Jesus drove the money-changers from the Temple because they had made His house a den of when I see all these false religions proclaiming that they know God when in reality they are leading people to eternal separation from God in a place called Hell...I believe that the Lord would be a little upset when that happens...Imagine Jesus hearing a group of people saying that Jesus never died on the cross nor rose from the dead...that no one could know His Father, when Jesus died so that we might KNOW the FATHER through Him...

2) We have heard that if Pastor Jones burns copies of the Koran, then it will cause the terrorists to kill American soldiers in the war zone...Huh? In case no one noticed, we have been at war with these terrorists for sometime now! Terrorists have been attacking our soldiers and civilians just because they don't like us, our way of life, our faith in Jesus Christ and our support for God's People, Israel...This will not stop and not burning the Korans will not cause them to suddenly love us and lay down their arms...

3) I find it a bit curious that the President came out and stated that the Muslims have every right to build a Mosque right near Ground Zero, even though that would "insult" all the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, but he never said anything about Pastor Jones having the right to burn the Koran, which he certainly does...

I believe that Pastor Jones should not burn the Koran copies because he should know that we will never win the hearts of Muslim people with stunts like this, but rather through love...

So maybe we should love people and then maybe, just maybe they would then experience the love that Jesus has for them...

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The People of God

Greetings! Each week, Dr. Jack Van Impe, a man who can quote Scripture in rapid fire succession, sends out a "Message of Hope"...the following is a compilation of several such "messages" that I have found to be fascinating, I hope you will too! This is rather lengthy, but I believe it will be beneficial!



This is a rather lengthy post but well worth your time in reading it...Dr. Jack Van Impe, a man who can quote Bible Verses in rapid fire, weekly sends out "A Message of Hope" and I found these to be very thought provoking, I hope you will too!



Queen Victoria asked her Jewish prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, "Can you give me one verse in the Bible that will prove its truth?"

He replied, "Your Majesty, I will give you one word -- Jew! If there was nothing else to prove the truth of the Bible, the history of the Jews is sufficient."

The survival of the Jews is a miracle. Scattered among the nations, despised by kings and generals who tried to destroy them, they have endured as a people. Why?

A Date with Destiny

The reason for the preservation of the Jewish race is found in the Bible. While their trials were foretold by the ancient prophets, so was their ultimate triumph. The same Book that announced their coming dispersion guaranteed their return to the land God had promised them: "Hear the word of the LORD, 0 ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock" (Jeremiah 31:10).

So the future of the Jews has always been sure. Efforts to destroy them as a race have been futile because they are destined to play an important role in end-time events. Actually, the Jews have been and still remain the most secure race on earth. The Hamans and Hitlers of history have come and gone, but the Jews remain. That is consistent with the message of the Bible: "Though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished" (Jeremiah 30:11).

This tiny scattered people, moving through the nations of the world, has had such a definite date with destiny that no power on earth could destroy them.

Further, the future of Israel was pronounced by Jeremiah to be as certain as the laws of the universe:

"Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord"(Jeremiah 31:35-37).

The ability of the Jews to remain a people apart while scattered throughout the world is another evidence of the divine plan. Minister and author Walter Brown Knight once wrote, "Through the centuries, the Jew has maintained his racial identity. Like Jonah in the belly of the great fish -- undigested, unassimilated -- the Jew has remained unassimilated, unamalgamated, undigested though he has wandered among all nations."

The Jews have been on a journey to Jerusalem for nearly two thousand years. Although at times some have lost sight of that destination in spite of their "Next year at Jerusalem" at Passover, the story of their sojourn through many lands and their ultimate return to the land of their fathers has been told again and again by the prophets.

Visit to a Cemetery

Perhaps the most vivid of all descriptions of the scattering and return of Israel is given by the prophet Ezekiel in his vision of the valley of dry bones. An acquaintance with this vision is essential to the student of prophecy who longs for an understanding of the events taking place in the Middle East in our day:

"The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army" (Ezekiel 37:1 -- 10).

What an experience! The prophet was taken to a cemetery, a great valley full of bones. Exposed to the wind and sun, the bones had become dry and bleached. Ezekiel looked upon a valley full of skeletons, certainly not a happy sight, And while looking, he was asked: "Can these bones live?" In faith, he replied, "O Lord GOD, thou knowest."

Ezekiel was then given the responsibility of prophesying about these dry bones. He actually spoke to them and informed them that they would receive flesh, breath, and life. While he was speaking, there was a great noise and a shaking as the bones came together, attaching properly bone to bone. Finally, the skeletons, covered with flesh and given life, stood to their feet and became a great army. Further explaining the frightening experience, the prophet said:

"Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, 0 my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, 0 my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord" (Ezekiel 37:11-14).

Ezekiel's strange vision can be interpreted in this way: The bones represent Israel. Their disconnectedness and dryness indicate the people of Israel's scattering and lack of hope. The graves are the nations in which they dwell. The imparting of sinew, flesh, and breath is a miracle timed for the last days.

The Jews are to come out of their graves, i.e., the nations to which they have been scattered. They will return in unbelief and without spiritual life, but finally after being settled in their land, there will come a time of conversion -- new birth:

"And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, 0 my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord" (Ezekiel 37:13,14).

Understanding Ezekiel's vision is not difficult. But is it finding fulfillment in our day? Is there a point in time at which it can be reasonably said that the bones of Ezekiel's vision began coming together?

There is.

Following the ascension of Alexander III as Czar of Russia, thousands of Jews fled west in hope of finding freedom from persecution. Others turned their minds to nationalism. The ancient hope of a return to their homeland began to surface. To many, the thought seemed farfetched because Palestine was under Turkish control. Nevertheless, the desire of the Jews for a sanctuary moved them to establish two organizations, the purpose of both being the setting up of a Jewish homeland in the land of Palestine. Both groups were formed in 1882.

Birth of Zionism

The first of these organizations was called "Hoveve Zion," or "Lovers of Zion." This was a worldwide movement to promote interest in Jewish settlement in Palestine.

The second organization was a small group named "Bilu," composed of people who actually went to Palestine and began to work the land in spite of the objections of the Turks. The circumstances were very difficult and the settlements that were started were not economically successful. They were taken under the protection and assistance of Baron Edmund DeRothschild. In this way they survived.

The move among the Jews to return to their land, the stirring of the dry bones, was a small affair for more than a dozen years. In 1895, however, a dramatic event set one man's heart afire for the cause of Zionism. His name was Theodor Herzl.

Herzl, a Jewish Austrian newspaperman, had come to Paris to cover the public humiliation of Alfred Dreyfus, a French soldier convicted of collaboration with Germany. Dreyfus, a Jew, seemed the perfect example of one who had assimilated into the European culture and society, overcoming race and religion barriers. Having attended a famous military academy in France, he had received the rank of captain. Now he was accused of giving French military information to the German military attaché at Paris. Despite scanty evidence, a secret court-martial condemned Dreyfus to public humiliation and life imprisonment on Devil's Island. The case has gone down in history as a miscarriage of French justice.

The public humiliation of Dreyfus took place in January of 1895. Theodor Herzl stood with the crowd and heard them begin to cry, "Kill the traitor, kill the Jew." As the Jewish writer listened to the screams of the mob, a shock wave rolled through his entire being. Herzl heard that same crowd in effect crying for his blood, since he was also a Jew.

Walking away from the spectacle, Theodor Herzl was a broken man. Like Dreyfus, he had lived in comfort and had almost forgotten the persecutions of his people and the barriers that had existed between Jews and Gentiles through the centuries. Now he understood that those barriers still remained, that hatred for Jews was still real, and that all Jews were in jeopardy wherever they found themselves in the world. This awful awakening sent Herzl into seclusion to write a book that would shake the world and play an important role in establishing the State of Israel.

Herzl's book was a one-hundred-page work entitled: Der Judenstaat -- The Jewish State. The book began: "The Jews who will it shall have a state of their own."

In 1897, two years after the publication of his book, Theodor Herzl called the first World Zionist Congress to session in Basle, Switzerland. The meeting was held in a gambling casino. The name of those determined to bring about the return to their land would now be "Zionists," so named for Mount Zion in Palestine. Herzl was elected the international executive. A Jewish fund was established as well as a land bank to make it possible to purchase land in Palestine. A flag was chosen. The colors were white and blue for the colors of the tallith prayer shawl, and "Hatikvah" (The Hope) was designated as a national anthem.

At the conclusion of that first Zionist Congress, Herzl wrote in his diary, "I have founded the Jewish state. If I were to say so today, people would laugh at me, but in five years' time, certainly in fifty years, it will be seen that I was right." (On November 29, 1947, almost fifty years after Herzl wrote the words, the General Assembly of the United Nations by a majority vote made the birth of the State of Israel legally possible. In May of 1948, the nation was born.)

The new leader of Zionism exhausted himself in the cause to which he was committed. During the next eight years he met with many of the world's statesmen. This leader of a homeless people had a vision of a modern-day exodus. He dreamed not of straggling groups finding their way back to the Jewish homeland, but rather of great companies of Jews settling in their land and prospering there.

Herzl spent much of his early effort seeking sponsoring nations among the European powers. His first thought was of Germany and he wooed Wilhelm II. Finding no help there, he turned to England. In 1903, one year before Herzl's death, the British offered the Jews the country of Uganda as a place to settle. Although the Jews rejected this African area, England's offer gave official recognition to the Jewish right of a homeland. Herzl counted that a great victory.

Shortly after the turn of the century, increased persecution in Russia sent many immigrants to Palestine. Herzl's work was bearing fruit. Among these Jewish settlers was a young man named David Green from Plonsk, a Polish town northwest of Warsaw. His father, an attorney, had been an avid Zionist and young Green had listened enthusiastically as his father discussed the merits of Zionism with his friends.

David Green was not content to simply debate the issues. He longed to live in Israel and had come there to contribute to the establishment of that nation. In their book, O Jerusalem, Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre write that young Green found Jerusalem like a modern tower of Babel, with Jews speaking forty different languages and half of them unable to communicate with the other half.

Changing his name to David Ben-Gurion, this young immigrant became the editor of a Zionist trade union paper committed to the revival of the Hebrew language. After Herzl's death, he would become an important force in the establishment and development of the nation he loved.

The foundation of the nation had been laid. The dry bones were coming together. Ezekiel's vision was on its way to fulfillment; the most significant sign of the end times and the return of the Messiah would, in the next half century, become a reality.

But there were troubled times ahead.

War would come to Europe and to the world. Jews would find themselves in the middle of a global war, having friends on both sides of the conflict. The war itself would threaten to extinguish Zionism. For a time it would seem as if the bones of the vision would retreat to the dust and be as dry as the arid soil of the land the Jews were seeking to reclaim.

How did this struggling people manage to overcome the perils of World War I?

What part would World War I play in the development of the State of Israel and in setting the stage for the final drama of the ages?

What events in World War I were necessary to prepare the world for closing time?
World War I - The Threat to Survival

While traveling on a train the West, Leon Tucker spoke to a Jew about Israel. The Jew said he was perfectly satisfied in the United States. His home was here, his business was here, and his family had become established here. He was not interested in Jerusalem of the building of the nation of Israel.

"Stretch out your right hand," Tucker said. The Jew held out his right hand and Tucker looked at it. Then he said, "Stick out your tongue, please."

"Are you trying to make a fool of me?" the Jew asked.

"No," Tucker replied, "but I would like to see your tongue." The Jew stuck out his tongue.

Tucker looked at it and quoted from Psalm 137:5,6: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy."

The Jew bowed his head and with tears said, "I have never been so rebuked in my life."

The Young Idealists

The years following the founding of Zionism demonstrated that many Jews had indeed forgotten Jerusalem. Having become comfortable, especially in the West, most Jews preferred to stay in the nations to which they had wandered.

Just before the turn of the century, however, there was a wave of Jewish immigrants to Palestine. Moved by Herzl's book and his eloquence, a number of young idealists came as pioneers to the land of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Many of these new arrivals were students. The education they were to receive in their chosen land was to be a difficult one. Palestine was under the control of Turkey, a nation hostile to Jews. The land was denuded of forests and most of it had returned to desert. Ancient terraces that had once protected the soil of Israel had long been destroyed, and erosion had conquered much of the are a. The vital partnership of soil and farmer, so needed for agricultural success, had been broken for centuries and conditions were deplorable.

Mark Twain, who visited Palestine in 1867, described it as:

...a desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds -- a silent mournful expanse. ...A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action.... We never saw a human being on the whole route.... There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

Even as late as 1913, the report of the Palestine Royal Commission quotes an eyewitness account of the Maritime Plain as follows:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts. ...No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna village.... Not in a single village in all this area was water used for irrigation.... Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen.... The ploughs used were of wood.... The yields were very poor.... The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist.... The rate of infant mortality was very high.... The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert.... The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria; many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.

But this hostile land would be tamed. The desert would yet blossom as the rose.

As the years passed, trained people would arrive -- scientific farmers, irrigation experts, builders of factories and cities, educators, and thinkers. These immigrants of diverse abilities and interests would in the next three- quarters of a century bring the dead land to life a gain. But what a task lay before them!

By 1914 there were about 100,000 Jews in Palestine, mostly in the area of Jerusalem. Though Herzl was no longer living, his dream was beginning to materialize. Foundations were being laid. Preparations were being made for the birth of a nation. Then World War I broke out.

Caught in the Middle

World conflict was especially unwanted by the Jews. Being small in number and finding themselves caught in the middle of strategic territory held by Turkey and desired by Great Britain, many Jews feared the worst -- death of their nation before its birth, the abortion of Israel, the destruction of Zionism.

Turkey's alliance with Germany threatened disaster to Jews in Palestine. Work had to be halted on the homeland. Jews with citizenship in any of the Allied nations were deported. Some Jews were forced to accept Turkish citizenship. Dozens were executed, accused of spying for the Allies.

Another problem for Jews in World War I was a division of loyalties. Jews fought on both sides of the conflict, and with equal patriotism. Unlike World War II, when Germany was an enemy of all Jewish people and thus unified them, World War I offered no such clear-cut decision. Jews in Germany were generally loyal to that land and served with devotion.

War Does Not Take God by Surprise

Although World War I brought great difficulties to the Jews and made the development of their homeland precarious, there were some important positive results from that tragic conflict. Students of the Bible understand that all events work out God's great plan. Even war does not take God by surprise. The working out of His program is not affected by the violence of man: "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain" (Ps. 76:10).

The first positive spin-off from World War I was the issuing of what is known as t he Balfour Declaration. Eager to involve the Jews on the side of the Allies and being especially concerned about their strategic location near the Suez Canal, British foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour, on November 2, 1917, sent the following declaration to Lord Rothschild expressing British sympathy with the cause of Zionism:

His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

British support for the establishment of the State of Israel was now on paper and declared to the world. If the aim of that move was to gain Jewish participation in the war, it was successful. The publication of the Balfour Declaration produced Jewish volunteers for service from Great Britain and other nations, especially the United States. It appeared now that instead of destroying Zionism, as had been feared, World War I would actually play an important role in establishing the Jews in their land.

Freedom for Jerusalem!

The second important development in the wartime drama was the arrival there of British General Allenby. The conquest of Jerusalem became one of his first objectives, and the success of his effort is well known.

The Balfour Declaration had been issued on November 2, 1917. One month later, General Allenby freed Jerusalem from the Turks. On December 9, 1917, Allenby's forces liber ated Jerusalem without firing a shot. When the Turks had discovered that a general was on the way whose name was Allenby (to them "Allah Bey" -- the Prophet of God), they had taken this to mean God was against them and they evacuated the city. It is also said that seeing airplanes in battle for the first time panicked the Turks because they were aware of Isaiah's promise of Jerusalem's deliverance: "As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it" (Isaiah 31:5).

Whatever the reasons, Jerusalem was free and the Jews rejoiced. And what a great occasion that victory must have been for General Allenby! He later told how as a boy as he knelt to say his evening prayers he had been taught by his mother to pray: "And O, Lord, we would not forget thine ancient people, Israel. Hasten the day when Israel shall again be Thy people and shall be restored to Thy favor and to their land." At a reception given for him in London, Allenby said, "I never knew that God would give me the privilege of helping to answer my own childhood prayers."
Statehood for Israel

A third benefit resulting from World War I was the public and official appreciation given to Dr. Chaim Weizmann, a Jew, for his contribution to the war effort of the Allies. Weizmann, who was born in Russia in 1874, studied chemistry in Germany and then taught at universities in Switzerland and England. During World War I he devised an improved method of making acetone, which is used in making explosives. This discovery may actually have affected the outcome of the war.

The prime minister of England credited Weizmann with saving the British army because of his work in providing explosives. When Great Britain tried to reward Weizmann for his work, he said, "There is nothing I want for myself, but there is something I would like you to do for my people." Weizmann requested the establishment in Palestine of a national homeland. It was generally thought that his work had a great deal to do with bringing about the Balfour Declaration. Weizmann later became the first president of the State of Israel.

Following the war, the newly formed League of Nations approved the providing of a national homeland for the Jews as outlined by the Balfour Resolution. President Woodrow Wilson proposed that the land of Palestine be under a British mandate as a temporary arrangement, the ultimate aim being emancipation and independence of that area. The proposal was adopted and the Jews rejoiced.

All seemed ready now for the fulfilling of the words of the Hebrew prophets concerning the return of the Jewish people to their land:

For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and w ill deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel. I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God (Ezekiel 34:11 -- 15).

But the battle was far from won. Difficult days were ahead for the Jews. The British mandate in Palestine did not turn out as the Zionists had hoped. Disappointment lingered. The vision of hundreds of thousands of Jews pouring into Palestine would have to wait another generation for fulfillment. Frustrating quotas allowing only small numbers of Jewish immigrants plagued the planners of this new nation. The struggle continued.

But What of the Arabs?

Hoping to keep peace with the Arabs, the British placed ridiculously small immigration quotas on the Jews. In 1930, a Royal Commission of Inquiry under agricultural and settlement expert Sir John Hope Simpson concluded that only 20,000 more settlers could be admitted to the land without forcing the Arabs out. At that time there were approximately 850,000 Arabs and 170,000 Jews living there. Simpson could not foresee that in the years to come millions would occupy the area, enjoying a far higher standard of living then he observed in 1930.

To support their restrictions of Jewish immigration, the British issued a series of "white papers" that supposedly gave good reasons for their action. The most shocking of the policies set forth in these official documents was the declaration that within a specified time a majority vote of the Arabs could halt all Jewish immigration. Of the final of these infamous papers, Winston Churchill said:

There is much in this white paper which is alien to the spirit of the Balfour Declaration, but I will not trouble about that. I will select the one point upon which there is plainly a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration, the decision that Jewish immigration can be stopped in five years time by an Arab majority. This is a plain breach of a solemn obligation.

Others joined Churchill in protesting the injustice, but the British continued their restrictive action throughout their mandate. It would take another global war to finally build Jewish resolution sufficient to break down the barriers that made it illegal for them to reenter the land.

Winning the War but Losing the Peace

Hindsight declares that in World War I the Allies won the war but lost the peace. One of the reasons for this tragedy was the bitterness born in a young Austrian corporal in the German army named Adolf Hitler.

Angered at the humiliation brought to his people by the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I and bitter about society in general, Hitler set out to get revenge. He found a sympathetic following among many of the veterans of the defeated German army and later, in the economic chaos that befell Germany, among a good portion of the population. His ultimate political success, making him dictator of Germany, became one of the most regrettable developments of the twentieth century.

Though volumes have been written attempting to analyze the troubled mind of Adolf Hitler, his hatred of the Jews found expression in such inhuman policies and practices that they can only be attributed to satanic influence.

Taking the reins of the German government, he would embark on a binge of bloodshed that would victimize all nations. But none would suffer as the Jews. Six million of the children of Israel would die at the hands of Hitler and his henchmen. The world would never be the same again, and Jews everywhere would be determined to settle for nothing less than a land of their own -- the land of their fathers.

Hitler's holocaust -- the travail of Israel

The Jews have enriched all the nations in which they have settled - an inevitable fact because of the promise given to Abraham when he left his home to go to a land of God's choosing: "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing" (Gen. 12:2).

According to the psalmist, God chose Israel for His "peculiar treasure" (Ps. 135:4). And although it has not often been recognized, the Jews have been a treasure to all nations of the world.

Mark Twain wrote:

Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous, dim puff of stardust in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of. He is as prominent on this planet as any other people. His commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also altogether out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in the world in all the ages and he has done it with his hands tied behind him.

Blessings through the Jews

Even those who hate Jews take advantage daily of their many contributions. Those who have heart disease and use digitalis are benefiting from the work of Ludwig Traube. If one has a toothache and uses Novocain, he is helped by the work of Carl Koller. If one contacts typhoid fever, his recovery is likely to be the result of the work of two Jews, Widal and Weil. If one has diabetes and uses insulin, it is because that product is available through the research work of a Jew named Minkowsky. The list is long; the blessings that come to us through the Jews are many.

When settling in their ancient homeland, the Jews brought blessing to the Arabs who dwelt there. That may sound absurd in the light of present conflicts in the Middle East, but it is true.

In 1937 the Peel Commission was sent by Great Britain to survey the situation in Palestine. The commission was headed by Lord Peel and composed of a group of men of exceptional ability. Its report in part was as follows:

It is difficult to detect any deterioration in the condition of the Arab upper class. Landowners have sold substantial pieces of land at a figure far above the price it would have fetched be fore the First World War [It must be noted that this commission's study was during the depression of the thirties].... In recent transactions, mainly Palestinian Arabs have been concerned and the transactions have all been considerable.... Partly, n o doubt as the result of land sales, the effendi class has been able to make substantial investments of capital.... At least six times more Arab-owned land is now planted with citrus than in 1920.... Some of the capital has been directed to building houses for lease or sale to industrial enterprise.... In the light of these facts, we have no doubt that many Arab landowners have benefited financially from Jewish immigration.... A member of the Arab higher committee admitted to us that nowhere in the world are such uneconomic land prices paid as by the Jews in Palestine.

The general beneficent effect of Jewish immigration on Arab welfare is illumined by the fact that the increase in Arab population is most marked in urban areas affected by Jewish development.... We are also of the opinion that up till now the Arab cultivator has benefited on the whole from the work of British administration and from the presence of the Jews in the country. Wages have gone up and the standard of living has improved. Jewish example has done much to improve Arab cultivation, especially citrus.

The reclamation and anti-malarial work undertaken by Jewish colonists have benefited all Arabs in the neighborhood. Institutions founded with Jewish funds primarily to serve the national home have also served the Arab population. The Arab charge that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange grove s was sand dunes and swamp when it was purchased.

But if this is true, why the Arab-Israeli conflict?

A similar question might also be asked concerning the reaction to Jews all over the world. Why are the Jews so maligned and hated when they are so productive and helpful? There can be but one explanation -- the fulfillment of prophecy: "And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee" (Deut. 28:37).

The Dilemma

So the Jew finds himself in a difficult situation. He is a blessing, yet a byword. He is a treasure, yet he experiences great trouble. He is a contributor, yet he causes conflict wherever he goes. In short, although the material gains brought by Jews are desired, the Jew himself is unwanted. Nowhere was this more true than in Germany during the Third Reich. The official government policy became the extermination of the Jews while salvaging their accumulated wealth, including all personal possessions down to the fillings in their teeth.

Hitler's Nazis made no secret of their hatred of the Jews from the very beginning. Part of their platform in 1920 was: "None but members of the nation may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation."

The Persecution

When Hitler finally came to power in Germany, the fate of the Jews in Europe was sealed. Like many before and after him, Hitler blamed the Jews for all the ills of society. He saw the Treaty of Versailles that ended the First World War as a Jewish document. Weaknesses in the German economy were attributed to the Jews. He faulted the Jews for the birth and presence of communism in the world. He accused the Jews of being revolutionary and instigating internationalism, a supposed plot o f the Jews to destroy Germany and seize control of the world. They became his favorite scapegoat, and their suffering at his hands rivals the most gruesome of human crimes.

Hitler's persecution of the Jews began in 1933; shortly after he took office. On April 7 of that year he stripped all Jews of offices in the German civil service. Government officials, doctors, lawyers, and workers in educational and cultural fields were all required to sign the following statement:

I declare officially herewith I do not know of any circumstance -- despite careful scrutiny -- that may justify the presumption that I am not of Aryan descent; in particular, none of my paternal or maternal parents or grandparents was at any time of the Jewish faith. I am fully aware of the fact that I expose myself to prosecution and dismissal if this declaration proves untrue.

Within three months, thirty thousand heads of Jewish families had been deprived of income.

The future sufferings of the Jews were also announced in two lines of a song called "The Horst Wessel Song," which became the theme of every major parade in Germany. Translated, two lines of the song were: "When Jewish blood flows from the knife, Things will go much better."

Under Hitler's direction there was a steady rise in outrageous demands and unlawful acts against all Jews. By 1938 every synagogue in the nation had been burned, the windows of every Jewish establishment had been shattered, and twenty-five thousand innocent Jews were in concentration camps.

In the infamous Buchenwald camp Jews were shipped and tortured during the day, while throughout the night a voice shouted over the loudspeakers, "Any Jew who wishes to hang himself is asked first to put a piece of paper in his mouth with his number on it so that we may know who he is."

Nazi atrocities against the Jews began to stir world opinion. Finally, in July of 1938, a conference of thirty-two nations was called in order to consider some means of rescue for these persecuted people. Spokesmen for various Jewish groups were heard, including Golda Meir, and the sufferings of the Jews in Germany for the previous five years were reviewed, as well as the evident course of persecution in the future.

Hitler was bent on raising a generation of Jew-haters. Proof of this was demonstrated by the following statement from one of the new German school reading books: "Remember that the Jews are children of the devil and murderers of mankind. Whoever is a murderer deserves to be killed himself." That look at the direction of education in Hitler's Germany ought to have been enough to move the conference to positive action.

But the world united to trap the Jews for Hitler.

A tragic provision was passed on the final day of the conference that closed the door to freedom for the Jews in Germany and most of Europe. The measure read: "The delegates of the countries of asylum are not willing to undertake any obligations toward financing involuntary immigration." In other words, only Jews who could pay their own way would be able to escape. Since Hitler forbade Jews to leave the country with more than five dollars, that resolution made escape impossible.

The action of the conference was so negative that it not only closed the door to freedom for Jews but also closed the mouths of critics in other nations. Hitler reacted to the decision of the conference in a speech, stating: "The other world is oozing sympathy for the poor tormented people but remains hard and obdurate when it comes to helping them. "

He informed the South African defense minister: "We shall solve the Jewish problem in the immediate future... the Jews will disappear."

Shortly thereafter, the official newspaper of the Gestapo declared, "Because it is necessary, because we no longer hear the world's screeching, and because after all no power on earth can hinder us, we will now bring the Jewish question to its totalitarian solution ."

World War II was especially historic to Jews because it was the first time world Jewry found themselves fighting a common enemy since they had battled the Romans in the first century. In other wars they had patriotically defended the nations in which they had made their homes. Now, recognizing that Hitler was their declared foe, Jews everywhere gave full effort to defeating him.

In 1939, when England declared war on Germany, 130,000 of the 450,000 Jews in Palestine volunteered for combat service with Britain. Jews performed valiantly during the war, both behind enemy lines, where they were in double jeopardy as Jews and freedom fighters and in conventional warfare as part of the armed forces of the Allied nations.

While devotedly serving the Allies, however, the Jews found themselves in a conflicting situation. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were fleeing before the advancing German army, hoping for entry into Palestine. Incredibly, the doors to that land were closed to them because of Britain's strict immigration policies. Nevertheless, the Jews gave hand and heart to the war effort, fighting as if the hated white paper that barred entrance to their homeland did not exist.

It is doubtful that any people ever suffered as did the Jews during World War II when they were the special object of Hitler's hatred. As the pace of the war increased, so did the mad dictator's effort to destroy the Jews. When German military successes increased Nazi-controlled territory, the noose around Jewish necks was drawn tighter. And the conquest of adjacent nations meant the encirclement of hundreds of thousands more of the Jews in Europe, who then became raw materials for Hitler's death factories, targets for his Jew-killing machine.

Moses had written:

Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things; Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee (Deut. 28:47, 48).

Hunger, thirst, and nakedness were only part of the privations and persecutions experienced by the Jews within Hitler's reach. German technical genius was set to work to build efficient equipment for the total destruction of the Jews. In Hitler's words, this was to be the "final solution" to the Jewish problem

The Murder Missions

When the German army moved into Russia, mobile killing units were dispatched for the sole purpose of following the army and killing Jews. Within five months, these murder missions had brought death to 500,000 Jews. Ultimately, about one and one-half million of the children of Israel would fall before the bullets of the Einsatsgruppen (the mobile killing units).

Equally dangerous to Jews were the mobile gas vans which were first used in Kelmo, Poland. Ninety Jews at a time were packed into each van and asphyxiated by carbon monoxide. The death rate in this operation ran about one thousand Jews per day.

But without doubt, the most efficient Jew killers were the Nazi concentration camps or "death factories." And there were many: Westerbork, Vught, Bergenbelsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Grossrosen, Mauthausen, Ebensee, Theresienstadt, Sobibor, Auschwitz, Treblinka, and others.

Like a great industrial complex stretching across the ever-enlarging German empire, the camps were fed by trainloads of raw materials -- Jews -- and expected to produce whatever would pro fit the Third Reich. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were loaded into cattle cars and shipped like animals to the camps to be processed through the gas chambers and ovens.

The story is almost too hideous to tell. Moses had written, "Thy life shall hang in doubt before thee..." (Deut. 28:66) and the prophecy was literally fulfilled in the concentration camps of Hitler's "final solution."

Auschwitz was equipped to execute 10,000 Jews per day. Treblinka could destroy 25,000 per day. Arriving at one of these nightmare stations, a Jew might have life or death determined by the whim of one army officer. As the refugees came off the trains, one man might stand motioning to either the right or left. The left could mean the gas chambers while the right might allow a little time to work around the camp before the end.

Death Camp Deception

Reflection on the deception of the death camps is chilling. At Sobibor, a cordial greeting was given to new arrivals. Guards took children on their laps and gave them goodies. They were helpful with baggage, making official reports and providing tables for writing letters to friends. Pens and paper completed the illusion of helpfulness.
All the trappings of a holiday resort were at Sobibor. Everything seemed to inspire hope. There were canteens and parks. Rose gardens decorated the grounds. Yet it was there that in March of 1943 a wild celebration followed the execution of the millionth Jew. There was no hope at Sobibor.
Treblinka was set up as a rest center, a sanatorium. There was a waiting room and a railroad ticket office, giving the illusion that one would be able to buy his ticket for return after an assigned time there. Yet there was no return. Those arriving at Treblinka had simply entered the hopper of another of Hitler's killing machines. They would be destroyed, becoming some of the six million who were victims of Nazi hatred of the Jewish people.
The cooperation of non-Nazis in shipping Jews to their death is an unhappy story. Dutch resistance fighter J. A. Scheps rebuked his countrymen for their part in this awful slaughter, saying, "Don't you understand what they're doing to these helpless Jews? Don't you know how they torture our Jewish comrades? Have you bread-and-butter patriots never heard the voice of Rachel, she who mourns and will not be comforted for her children, the children you help carry to t heir death?"
Scheps challenged the Dutch engineers to refuse to carry the cattle cars full of Jews to their deaths. He called upon them to take a stand for righteousness and decency. Few did. Dutch trainmen transported 60,000 Dutch Jews in sixty-seven trains to one camp, Auschwitz, and only 500 returned.
The general procedure for Dutch Jews arriving at Auschwitz was to gas them immediately after being unloaded from the train. This was the heartless "It's-time- to-take-a-shower" routine. Usually women and children were taken first. All were ordered to undress in a common room. Clothes had to be neatly folded and shoes tied together (these would be sent to non-Jews thought worthy by the Third Reich).
The gas chamber appeared to be a shower room. To add reality to the lie, those entering were given a piece of soap and were promised a cup of coffee after the shower. When the room was packed with Jews, the forbidding door was shut and the gas was turned on. Within fifteen minutes the gruesome charade was over and it was time for the scavengers to begin their work. Gold teeth were removed. Wedding rings were taken off dead fingers. Women's hair was cut off. And the corpses were shoved into the ovens. The ritual was repeated again and again with the unfeeling efficiency of an assembly line. The end products were ashes and the few remaining possessions of European Jews who had already been robbed and uprooted."
The degree of Nazi hatred for the Jews may have been best expressed by the infamous Adolf Eichmann, who said, "I shall leap laughing into my grave, for the thought that I have five million human lives on my conscience is to me a source of inordinate satisfaction."
Can the fountain from which such thoughts flow be anything but satanic?
As the war drew to its close and Hitler's defeat was imminent, it became clear that history was about to bury another company of Jew-haters. God's promise to Abraham was invulnerable even to the military might of the Third Reich: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3).
On November 26, 1945, a statement by a Nazi doctor known for his bitterness toward Jews was published in Nuremberg, Germany. Admitting the tragedy of his own involvement in the attempted destruction of the Jews, he wrote:
We have forsaken God and therefore were forsaken by God.... Anti-Semitism distorted our outlook and we made grave errors. It is hard to admit mistakes, but the whole existence of our people is in question. We Nazis must have the courage to rid ourselves of anti-Semitism. We have to declare to the youth that it was a mistake
And what a mistake it was! It produced untold misery f or the Jews, exterminating six million of them and writing pages of disgrace in history concerning Hitler and the Nazis that will never be forgotten.
How different it might have been!
One author says: "Had Hitler loved the Israelites instead of hating them, he might have averted the greatest of all wars, the greatest of all destruction programs, and engendered the admiration of the world instead of its hatred."
Results of the Slaughter
Hitler's holocaust was decisive in bringing about the birth of the nation of Israel. European Jews had learned a hard lesson. They must never feel at home except in their own homeland.
The population of European Jews in 1939 had been 9,739,200. By 1945, Hitler's death camps and his portable killing units had reduced that population to 3,505,130. More than six million of the children of Israel had been victims of this slaughter.
Nevertheless, the Jews as a people were alive -- and Hitler was dead.
There was a future to be shaped, a homeland to be developed and work to be done in the land of their fathers. The Jews would do it. Having survived the holocaust, they were not to be denied their homeland. Immigration quotas and all other obstacles would be swept away in a new exodus to the land of Palestine.
The travail was not over. More years of struggle remained. But the birth of a nation was in sight -- the long-prophesied birth of the nation of Israel.
Other areas of God's prophetic program were developed by World War II. Russia had emerged as a military power. Europe was a shambles and would sense the need of cooperation and some kind of economic and political union, foreshadowing Daniel's prophecy of the revival of the Roman Empire. The immense wealth of the United States would be drained through postwar rebuilding of other nations and in acting as the world's peacekeeper and defender against communism, preparing the way for a power shift to Europe and the Mediterranean area. China and other nations of the East had been affected by the conflict and would move toward their end-time destinies.
Frightened, the world had entered the perilous nuclear age -- announcing the approach of closing time.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Too late for America?

Good evening...

I have just read on that President Obama has finally weighed in on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. Apparently the President believes that Muslims have every right to build the worship center across the street from Ground Zero because after all we celebrate the freedom of religion in America...

I guess everyone has a right to their own opinion, but some things don't even need to be debated...this is a horrible idea whose time has not and will never come...The president has sided with the enemies of freedom...he has sided with those who would push for the adoption of sharia law to be implemented and enforced in the United States and if that were to ever happen (probably will post rapture) then you can kiss freedom good bye...The President is simply showing his true colors: He is a Kenyan-born Muslim...period...

May God have mercy on this land...

II Chronicles 7:14, "If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

Is it too late for America?

Monday, August 9, 2010


This Thursday, August 12, 2010, Sandy and I will pack up our 18 year old son, Cameron, and take him off to Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Georgia, home of the Owls! Cameron will be the first of our 5 children to "go away" to school...Chris graduated with a degree in Business from Columbus State University in December 2009 and Ashley is in her final year of Nursing school also at Columbus State...So we are excited and apprehensive all at the same time!

We are sure that Cameron will do well as he is very academically oriented, but also Cameron is very strong in his Christian beliefs...Pray for him if you are a praying person and pray for us as well...

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Thoughts About Supreme Court nominations

I think that Alan Keys is probably one of the brightest men that I know...he has some interesting thoughts about the Supreme Court and the responsibilities that the President and the United States Senate have:

No President “entitled” to appoint any SCOTUS Justice he wishes
AUGUST 6, 2010 ·

Every day brings some new evidence that even people who are supposed to be conservatives are unable or unwilling to think through rudimentary features of the Constitution.
Today I for example I came across this declaration in a commentary piece at WND. The commentator wrote “I am not pleased to see Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan sitting on the bench, but I would have voted to approve them. That’s because I believe the president is entitled to appoint whomever he wishes, whether it’s Ruth Bade Ginsburg or Robert Bork.”

As I read this what came to mind was a word from the idiom of ancient Greece that was used to refer to something that is strictly private. With reference to opinion, it suggested a statement or view showing a lack of common sense and understanding, or a failure to take account of public rules or standards of thought and behavior. Obviously, it came to mind because the WND commentator’s statement fails to consider the public purpose of the constitutional provision that requires Senate confirmation of appointments to the Supreme Court.
If the president is entitled to appoint whomever he wishes, why did the Framers of the Constitution include this provision? Is confirmation just a silly waste of time? Or does it serve a profoundly necessary purpose?
According to the Constitution, the President of the United States is not entitled to appoint whomever he wishes. He must literally take account (also, a count) of the wishes of the members of the U.S. Senate. Today the Senators represent the States. Prior to passage of the 17th amendment (in my view a grave error), the Senators more specifically represented the State governments, which is to say the institutions that focus and embody the sovereignty of the people in their states.
Suit cannot be made against sovereign entities against their will without risk to public peace. In cases in which a state is a party, the Constitution assigns original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. In the interest of domestic tranquility, therefore, it makes sense to require consultation with the states when choosing the individuals that comprise the Court.
The confirmation process is therefore no mere formality. It is intended, among other things, to encourage among the states greater acceptance of, and trust in, the decisions of the Supreme Court. But it will only do so if the Senators take seriously their responsibility to represent the constitutional interests of their respective states. If they treat judicial appointments as some kind of presidential entitlement, they intentionally fail in this responsibility. Their inattention sets the stage for both the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government to fall into the habit of disregarding or trampling on the sovereign powers and prerogatives the Constitution leaves to the states, respectively and to the people.
These days we are witnessing the kind of dangerous abuses and usurpations this produces. Anyone who believes in the republic established by the U.S. Constitution should be working to end these abuses. Among other things, this involves insisting that Senators remember their responsibility to supervise and constrain judicial appointments so that they contribute to the restoration of constitutionally mandated federalism, rather than its further destruction.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Red-Letter Days

Well, we have certainly had some "Red-Letter Days" this week!

What is a Red-Letter Day? Glad you asked!
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know, why did I use them?)"A red letter day (sometimes hyphenated as red-letter day or called scarlet day in academia) is any day of special significance."

First: An Openly Practicing Homosexual Judge is the Federal Judge in California who ruled on the suit filed against Proposition 8 defining marriage as one man and one woman...He ruled in favor of the two homosexual couples who challenged the Proposition...Why did he not recuse himself? Also, how many times must the voters of California definitively state that they are against same-sex marriage?

Second: Elana Kagan (SP) was approved by the U.S. Senate to become the 112th Supreme Court Justice...she is a known liar as has been documented on this blog when her nomination was being debated and she will no doubt be a political hack for President Obama and any other liberals that may follow him...what I can't understand for the life of me is why Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted in favor of her being seated on the court...

Strange days indeed...

I can hear the rumble of the apocalypse...

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Arizona...Part II

Digesting the ruling of the Clinton Appointee it is more and more evident that the ruling itself was ludicrous...Note the response fro NRO (National Review online:

JULY 29, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Detaining Arizona

Attorney General Eric Holder could have dictated most of Judge Susan Bolton’s decision blocking key parts of the Arizona immigration law.
The judge twists facts and logic to support the Justice Department’s claim that the state law preempts the federal immigration scheme. To do so, she accepts Justice’s implicit argument that it’s not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce. If her reasoning stands, we will basically cut Congress out of immigration policy and the states out of enforcement. Instead, our immigration system will entirely depend on executive discretion at a time when the executive has little interest in enforcing the law.

Judge Bolton notes that the Department of Homeland Security has set up a national operations center to promptly apprise local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies of the legal status of aliens they encounter in the course of their work. Federal law requires that DHS “respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status . . . for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.”
Bolton bizarrely turns this explicit acknowledgment that the federal government envisions a state role in enforcement, and this requirement that the feds cooperate with states and municipalities, against Arizona. If the state finds too many suspected illegal aliens, it will overburden the system. “An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration,” she writes, “will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.” Earlier in her decision, Judge Bolton sets out the different kinds of preemption, e.g. field preemption (where federal regulation is so comprehensive it “occupies the field”) and conflict preemption (where a state law is at odds with a federal law). This is something utterly different: “We can’t be bothered to answer the phone” preemption.
Judge Bolton makes much of the burden that will be placed on legal aliens by the Arizona law. At the margins, there will be some, of course. If they are stopped or arrested and suspected of being in the country illegally, they will be asked for proof of their legal status. Surely this is not unreasonable, since federal law requires that aliens carry proof of their legal status.
Taking her cues from the Justice Department suit, though, Judge Bolton worries that this arrangement will inconvenience too many aliens without proof of their legal status, such as “individuals who have applied for asylum but not yet received an adjudication” (who, we are sure, are flooding across the Mexico-Arizona border constantly). If they are arrested and their status is checked with the federal government, she continues, their release might be delayed. She deems all of this intolerable.

It will constitute an unacceptable “intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally-present aliens,” she maintains, and runs counter to the 1941 Supreme Court decision in Hines v. Davidowitz, which held that Congress wanted to protect legal aliens from “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” Here Judge Bolton slips from the merely implausible to the inadvertently hilarious. If you are arrested, it’s difficult to avoid “police surveillance” during your arrest. And checking in with the federal government about an arrestee’s status — via an information-sharing system set up exactly for the purpose — can hardly constitute an “inquisitorial practice.”
The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it’s best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department’s suit — and Judge Bolton’s line of argument — prevails, then we’ll know that they don’t. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Injustice Continues...

Well it happened today...

A Federal Judge has blocked the Arizona law from being implemented until the suit is resolved...Our country is sinking deeper and deeper into socialism and more and more Federal control over every aspect of our lives...this decision, though not unexpected as this judge Susan Bolton is a Clinton appointee, is still disconcerting...The Federal Government is acting so hypocritically in that they attacked Arizona because Arizona is actually wanting to enforce the law, while at the same time, the Federal Government makes no attempt to rein in the so-called sanctuary cities who refuse to enforce the law...

This is a sad day for the United States of America...I can almost hear the sound of the apocalypse...

Jesus is coming soon...Are you ready?

Monday, July 19, 2010

What Others are saying about Obama

Interesting article from the Canada Free Press:

Obama Must be Impeached: He’s Either Incompetent, or Purposely Failing

By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, July 18, 2010
Is there a single American who secretly thinks Obama’s up to the task of the presidency? Or, does anyone believe Barack does not take bad situations and worsen them to magnify his power? These are rhetorical questions, of course. The only way Barack is an acceptable president is if you’re an opponent of America’s greatest achievements.
Therefore, if you support Obama it means you want to revolutionize the US. But no democratic country knowingly elects leaders to debase their country, give away power, bankrupt the treasury, incorporate socialism, dissolve constitutional rights, cripple capitalism, and menace every citizen with reckless policies. That would be ridiculous and anti-American. Barack has done all these things. Therefore, he must be impeached.
Obama’s habit of casually blaming all problems on the sins of his predecessor recalls a quote by Joseph Conrad, “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.” Similarly, Barack has revealed enough willful stupidity, ignorance, and crafty sabotage to explain every lingering crisis in America; he no longer need invoke the Devil Bush.
Probably most persons presently believe the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can’t be impeached for anything he has done. Those persons would be wrong. According to a recent book, “The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,” by Michael J. Gerhardt, impeachment is ultimately a political question which cannot be framed off a simple criminal analysis. This essay offers a brief overview of the federal impeachment process and proposes an analysis of Obama’s actions which place them into the impeachable category.

I. General Impeachment Process

Impeachment, according to the ABA website: “Is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office. “
The standard route that an impeachment follows is well-established. Here is a brief explanation from the Legal Information Institute:
The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, “all civil officers,” includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.
The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell
The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, “impeached”—that is subject to trial in the Senate.
The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.
II. Reasons for Impeachment
A. Political Crimes
Gerhardt’s book “The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,” is an excellent source to begin analyzing the proper foundation of impeachment. Gerhardt’s work arguably centers on chapter 9, titled “The Scope Of Impeachable Offenses.” He sums up the issue: “The major disagreement is not over whether impeachable offenses should be strictly limited to indictable crimes, but rather over the range of non-indictable offenses on which an impeachment may be based.” In other words, outside of a clear instance of serious crime, the question of whether an official can be impeached rests upon one question. This is—What kinds of acts, which would not normally lead to an arrest, could still form a basis for an impeachment?
Gerhardt’s study focuses upon the fact that impeachment is inevitably a “political” undertaking, as understood by how the old British system viewed the term “political.” Raoul Berger, in his Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems, studied instances of impeachment procedure occurring before the US Constitution was written. He found the British viewed the process as involving “high crimes and misdemeanors as a category of political crimes against the state.” Further, Berger isolated the use of “political,” in this sense, and “against the state” as being identical in meaning. In essence, when the Brits called an action “politically suspect,” it was meant as an injury to the state, that is—an attack against England.

William Blackstone, chronicler of the British common law, differentiates “high treason” from “low treason,” the latter being disloyalty to an equal or lesser. So high treason was disloyalty to a superior person or entity. According to Arthur Bestor, this differentiation between high and low treason was a key concept to understand for a proper impeachment analysis. Bestor describes how a fair impeachment proceeding would be founded upon a profound assault to the state itself.
The American constitutional Framers understood this difference between high and low treason, according to Gerhardt, believing impeachment dealt with high treasons in the form of attacks against the state. For example, Signator George Mason felt impeachments should be limited to acts that “attempt to subvert the Constitution,” among which he felt should include “maladministration.” While James Madison felt this term was too vague, Gerhardt claims all the Founders believed impeachment was not simply a process to deal with straightforward crimes. He writes, “In short, the debates at the constitutional convention show at least that impeachable offenses were not limited to indictable offenses, but included offenses against the state.”

The ratification debates on the Constitution certainly compassed beyond mere crimes as reason for impeachment. “Great” offenses included when an executive “deviates from his duty” or that he “dare to abuse the power vested in him by the people.” Framer, Signator and First US Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote upon this topic in Federalist 65, writing:
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
Founder, Signator and US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson agreed with Hamilton’s assessment, calling impeachable offenses… “political crimes and misdemeanors.” Harvard Constitutional scholar and US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story—and impeachment authority—agreed, according to the record in “Proceedings in the Cases of the Impeachment of Charles Robinson, et al…” He wrote,
The subject (of impeachment) is full of intrinsic difficulty in a government purely elective. The jurisdiction is to be exercised over offenses which are committed by public men in violation of their public trusts and duties. Those duties are, in many cases, political; and, indeed, in other cases, to which the power of impeachment will probably be applied…the power partakes of a political character… Political injuries to be of such kinds of misdeeds…as to peculiarly injure the commonwealth by the abuse of high offices of trust.
Justice Story also stated that a particular action did not have to have a previously existing law against the impeachable offense, writing “ previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.” This was considered crucial since no exhaustive statutes could ever be drafted so well as to foresee every single future event threatening the Republic. He said, “Political offenses are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not absurd to attempt it.” According to Gerhardt, this means Story and Hamilton agreed future generations “would have to define on a case-by-case basis the political crimes comprising impeachable offenses to replace the federal common law of crimes that never developed.”
B. Non-Indictable Impeachable Offenses
The hardest category for impeachments is defining actions that are not obvious crimes, but reveal such a lack of character or such ill-will or indifference to America’s safety that they become impeachable offenses, ipso facto. Lawrence Tribe, in his “American Constitutional Law” mentions some such examples, writing “...a deliberate presidential decision to emasculate our national defenses or to conduct a private war in circumvention of the Constitution” could form the basis for a non-indictable, impeachable action against the state. Now, simple un-indictable crimes such as jaywalking, smoking in a restaurant, or failing to use a turn signal are examples of actions that would not support an impeachment.
III. Do Obama’s Crimes Rise to Impeachment?
Do any of Obama’s actions rise to the level of his being impeached? Following are Barack acts that various persons believe are illegal, treasonous, or clearly impeachable. (Forgive the omission of many other serious Obama offenses)
A. Environmental Disaster
Gulf Oil Spill: Barack could have moved much more quickly to sop up the oil in the Gulf. His actions were obviously dilatory, especially refusing foreign aid and not using, to this day, 4 months after the spill started, all of America’s 2,000 oil skimmers. How many millions of gallons of petroleum did this add to Louisiana’s and Mississippi’s and Alabama’s fragile wetlands? And Obama is “dedicated” to the environment? Please!

Barack also battled various governors when they tried to protect their states, like LA’s Bobby Jindal, a potential future political opponent. This ridiculous foot-dragging greatly exaggerated the oil pollution’s effects, presumably to strengthen Barack’s political hand against future petroleum use. In fact, one could claim Obama is the least environmentally sound US president ever. So, does this rise to an impeachable offense? See how Incompetence has turned the Gulf oil tragedy into “Obama‚Äôs Katrina.”
B. Economic Failure
Socialism: Socialism is not an American ideology because it destroys capitalism, which the Founders chose as our model. But we know Obama opposes this when he said to Joe the Plumber: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it‚Äôs good for everybody.”
Government Bailouts: The Constitution protects private property, especially the Contracts Clause. Obama’s people unfairly favored the unions in the Detroit auto bailout, breaking this clause. Further, Obama had no mandate to bailout Detroit in general.
“Stimulus” Lies: Barack said if the Stimulus was not passed the economy would tank (some disagreed), despite not having helped draft it or even knowing what was in the bill. Stimulus Bill Too Lengthy to Read—But Not To Sign. Is a president touting a bill he doesn’t know impeachable conduct?
Unparalleled Deficit Spending: Just because Keynes had a theory about deficit spending does not make this the answer to all problems. Barack seems to wantonly waste money. Why? Plus, it would appear a great deal of TARP/bailout/stimulus money has been stolen, undoubtedly given for political gifts. Is this not, at least, impeachable?
Obama is demanding Cap’n-Trade, even after Global Warming has been proved a hoax. That’s theft.
Reason Magazine Lists Obama’s “Five Lies About the American Economy”
C. Republican Form of Government Under Attack
Representative Government: The Declaration of Independence says: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Yet Obama continually passes legislation without support of a majority, like Obamacare. Is this impeachable conduct?
Attempts to Throw Out Filibuster. God forbid anything in the US government not be based upon pure democracy so to make it easier for mob rule! Read about Biden’s hypocrisy!
D. Sovereignty
Should America hand over sovereignty to world bodies? America cedes sovereignty at Copenhagen?
Should Obama honor deals made with our allies? Canceling Polish Missiles for Russia
Should Barack bow to every despot in the world? If so, why? Bowing to Foreign Leadership.
Should Obama use foreign leaders as proxies to attack American state’s policies? Obama Brings Foreign Leaders to Talk Down America
E. Political Crimes
Can the White House dictate who runs for office?
Did WH Sestak Cabinet offer break law? Was Sestak offered a job to not run? Is that election tampering?
Did the WH break the law when CO’s Romanof was offered a job to drop out?
Did Obama try to get Valerie Jarret in his old senate seat?
Where did Obama’s Internet election millions come from?
Isn’t appointing un-vetted, Marxist czars simple un-American? Isn’t it impeachable?
F. Bill of Rights
Free Speech. Obama thugs were disrupting town hall meetings before the Obamacare vote. Also, Obama has a problem with free speech he’d like the Court to address. And Elena “Mister” Kagan, Obama’s candidate for the SCOTUS opening, thinks free speech should be curtailed.
Property Right: Obama salivates on thinking of wealth redistribution!
Internet Freedom: Obama plans to limit free speech on the Net and now will have a “kill switch” to turn it off during “emergencies.”
Religious Freedom: Some critics don’t think Obama cares about any religious freedom but Islamic.
G. Supporting Global Democracy:
Bearing in mind American policy was always to support greater global freedom and democracy, to make the world better and safer, should Obama unilaterally change this policy? Isn’t that impeachable?
Obama is an enormous critic of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. But Barack claims Israelis don’t like him because of his Muslim name, as opposed to his dreadful policies!
Barack refused to take a strong stand against the Iranian democracy crackdown. Why? Doesn’t Obama care about Iranian freedom advocates?
Obama refused to stand up for Honduran constitutionalism. But why not? Isn’t he a US constitutional scholar? Barack even terminated aid to Honduras for defending their constitution!
H. Illegal Immigration
Obama refuses to strongly support border security, despite grave dangers.
But when individual states act to stop illegal entries, Barack attacks their laws and sues them.
Barack lashes out self-righteously against the law which mirrors his own federal statutes.
Obama’s dense attorney general also rages, despite admitting never having read the law.
I. Pro Islam
Obama is Refusing to Call Jihadists “Muslim Terrorists.” Barack believes if he is “polite” to murderous Islam they will leave us alone.
Using NASA to Help Islam. This may be Barack’s all-time craziest idea: Announce the American’s space program’s real mission is to help promote Islam. Wow!
Obama once practiced Islam, according to Islam expert Daniel Pipes.
J. Honesty, Religion & Political Beliefs
Barack has transparently lied about many important topics. Is being a habitual liar impeachable?
Obama religious beliefs: His 20-year “minister” Rev Wright is a Marxist radical who hates Whites and Jews. Note the emergence of President Obama’s Muslim Roots.
Obama’s political views: He used to be a garden variety Marxist at Occidental College! More… In an interview with Dr John C. Drew, Obama was described as a vain, stylish, gay socialist who hung out with another male student who footed his bills.
Barack says he’s not a socialist, but he only makes government bigger and more expensive.
IV Bonus Section: Barack Birth Certificate
I don’t claim to know where Barack Obama was born. But the fact the guy cannot produce an original birth certificate, yet refuses to admit this obvious fact—is strange. I mean, why does he post a replacement certificate online as if it were the original? That’s an idiotic maneuver. Further, wasting millions of tax payer of dollars fighting Birther lawsuits gives one no confidence in his origins.
But the real importance of the Birther movement is to continually highlight the very alien nature of Obama, and how opposed he is to everything traditionally American. Undoubtedly, the desire to fend off strange and un-American personalities who did not grow up in the US and therefore cannot hope to identify with our history of rugged individualism and freedom-loving ways was key to the Founders not allowing foreign-born presidents. And Obama is an alien to American ideals and freedoms, regardless of where he was born.
Should Obama be impeached? Each reader must work through the issues for themselves on this key question. The argument for doing so is to protect America, knowing each successive day Barack stays in office, is another day of rape, humiliation and plunder of this great land. It seems certain Obama is at least a socialist, and further, a lawless individual who will do anything he wants to break America’s institutions to force Americans into accepting Marxism. Undoubtedly, he believes he would be helping the world to do so. But sincerity does not cure the great harm he is inflicting by his socialist delusions.
Therefore, because Barack is clearly doing many things to unilaterally harm and “change” America towards more socialism, and perhaps communism—he must be impeached. This is not just for purposely sabotaging our economy like a good Marxist, but for the wicked human rights disasters that have occurred in all far-leftist countries. Further, we can see quite clearly if a US president is obviously trying to harm America, for whatever reason, they can be impeached based upon the historic meaning of the process. All we need conclude is the president is doing a “political” attack—that is a purposeful assault against the US to harm the country. And Obama surely is doing so.
But we must wait for the November 2010 elections and see the fear in Democrat eyes, after they suffer historic defeat, and then pounce on the opportunity to drive this leftist maniac from power forever. We may never have another chance to save the home of global freedom. As Reagan once said, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” ~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967.

Thank you and shalom.