Christianity and Government Involvement

Should Christians be involved in Government?

Should American Christians be involved in political issues and elections? Should Christians vote for their leaders? If they do vote, do they vote in every election that comes around, or do they just vote in the “major elections?” Do they take the time to acquire a sample ballot prior to the election so they can make an informed decision on what they are voting for? Do they make any effort do in-depth research on the candidates, the issues and the questions? Should Christians write to their Senators and Congressmen?

If you ever decide to poll your Christian friends with these questions, you may want to prepare yourself for a shock. A fair number of Christians will tell you that they vote in Presidential elections, but you aren’t likely to find many who vote in every election that comes around. Even more disturbing is the degree of background information that most Christians actually utilize in order to make informed decisions about what they are voting on. Outside of headlines and bullet points acquired in the evening news, most voters have little to no information about the candidates or the issues. Why are many Christians simply not interested in our political process?

Voting is merely the starting point in citizen involvement. Our responsibility isn’t over after the election. Our President, our Governors, our Senators and our Representatives still need to hear from us on a regular basis. Our elected leaders need to know and understand the heart of the electorate. It’s very easy to communicate with our representatives these days. Nevertheless, very few Christians have ever written to their elected leaders.

“We have no business interfering with God’s plan,” say many Christians. “God is in charge of all the rulers and kingdoms of the world. There is nothing we can do about it.” One of the scriptures these Christians are likely to quote is: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:1

“As a matter of fact,” they may continue, “We are instructed that instead of being involved in the governmental process, we should just pray for our rulers.” I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
I Timothy 2:1-3

Many Christians defend their silence on political issues by saying, “God did not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation. What happens in this world is God’s will. We are to stay out of it. We should only pray that God’s will be done.” They continue to say, “The Bible does not specifically instruct us to be involved in government, therefore, we should not voice our opinions to our representatives. Instead of trying to manipulate the direction of government, we should just pray for our leaders.”

And finally, many Christians say that the Great Commission instructs us that our duty is to win souls, not influence government. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 28:19.

Are these responses right? Are we to stay out of our country’s political business? Should we forego the opportunity to inform our leaders of our opinions about the direction our country is heading?

Old Testament Examples of Government Involvement
Maybe this would be a good time to spend a little time looking at other scriptures in the Bible. Are there any instances in scripture where God’s followers participated in government?

Joseph was involved in government. Not only was he involved, he actually participated as a government ruler. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art: Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.
Genesis 41:39-44

Another example of government involvement is found with Mordecai. And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a garment of fine linen and purple: and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad.
Esther 8:15

For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed.
Esther 10:3

This is interesting. If God’s followers are not to be involved in government, why were Joseph and Mordecai involved in government?

“Well, those examples are found in the Old Testament,” some Christians may say. “What about the New Testament? The New Testament sets the stage for Christian activities.” Okay, let’s consider someone in the New Testament. John the Baptist wasn’t afraid to offer his opinion to King Herod. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
Mark 6:18

“That isn’t a very good example,” some may say. “For one thing, it is only one example out of the whole New Testament. For another thing, John the Baptist lived prior to the Church age. Since the Bible is silent about Christian involvement in government, we should stay out of such affairs.” That may be a fair statement, so let’s explore it a little further.

Models of Government in Jesus’ time
What sort of governmental bodies existed in Bible times? Almost without exception, all governments were of an authoritarian sort. Generally, every country in the known world was ruled by a king, a monarch, a dictator or a pharaoh. In these kinds of governments, one or a handful of people were forcefully in charge of their subjects. If someone were to approach the king and tell him that he was running the country wrong, that person would likely be executed on the spot. In Jesus’ day and in the days of the Apostles, the world’s countries were still controlled by men who ruled by force.

As a consequence, the Bible was silent when it came to instructions regarding Christian involvement in government. “That’s not fair,” some may say. “If God wanted us to be involved in the direction of our country, the Bible would have found some way to give us the proper instructions for such involvement. Besides that, all governments are put in place by God and ordained by God. We have no business interfering in God’s plan.”

Examples of commands in N.T. that we do not follow
Well, let’s look a little closer. With that kind of logic, every modern-day Christian woman should be silent in the Church.

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I Corinthians 14:34-35.

In spite of this scripture, modern Christian women are far from silent in the Church. This seems to be a direct command, yet it is not obeyed in modern churches. Why? Perhaps it is because the position of women in Bible times was far different than the position of women in modern times. Times have changed and circumstances are different.

Then, there is the issue with slavery. Slavery was commonplace in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. There was nothing wrong with a Christian being a slave owner. Actually, it was quite normal. Consequently, there were rules that a Christian slave owner was obliged to adhere to. Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
Colossians 4:1

We Twenty-First Century Christians would never think of owning a slave just because the Apostle Paul thought it was just fine to own one.

U. S. government is a Republic that is based on Democracy not Dictatorship
The Bible says that governments were put in place by God. It stands to reason therefore, that the United States government was put in place by God. The Bible also says that we are to obey the government. According to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, our government is, “…of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The “of the people and by the people” in Lincoln’s Address, and the “We the people” in the U.S. Constitution implies that all of the country’s citizens are by default, involved in the direction our country takes. As citizens of this great nation, we are obliged to have a voice in our government’s affairs. This nation that was “…ordained of God” (Romans 13:1) was established to be ruled by the will of its citizens…not by the will of its leaders.

How often have we heard ministers remind us that we should thank God every day that we live in a free country where we can say what we want, do what we want, read what we want and go where we want to go without fear of punishment from the government? How often have Christians expressed thankfulness that we can freely read our Bibles while at the same time, citizens of other countries are at risk of being jailed if they are caught with a Bible in their possession?

These freedoms did not come about by accident. Christian men formed this nation of freedoms. Ever since this nation was formed, voters have been electing people to office who have continued to keep our freedoms in place. In addition to voting people in office, a certain number of concerned citizens have reminded our leaders of the people’s will. This is done by communicating with the leaders, either personally, by phone, or by mail.


Should Modern-Day Christians be involved in politics?
Many Christians are quick to point out that our mission is to simply “let our light shine” before all of the unbelievers in the world, yet far too many Christians are not only apathetic when it comes to politics, they actually refuse to let their light shine when it comes to making their voices heard regarding the direction that our country is heading.

There are two forces at work in this world, one evil and one righteous. Jesus said, He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathered not with me scattereth abroad. Matthew 12:30. By voting and communicating with our leaders, our nation goes in the direction its citizens instruct it to go. If Christians don’t vote, and if Christians don’t communicate with our leaders, this nation will go the way of other nations of the world, which is away from God and God’s principles.

Our country was established on Judeo-Christian principles. However, that moral consensus has given way to many morally corrupt and hedonistic principles. This happened only with the tacit approval of the Christian majority. How did the Christian majority approve such a change? They approved this change by their apathy. Instead of voicing their opposition to such changes, only a vast silence has been heard. The silence of many Christians has also been evident at the polls. Sadly, less than half of self-described Christians voted in federal elections in the last fifty years. Too many voices within the Christian community are encouraging fellow Christians to keep silent, especially when it comes to civic and cultural concerns.

The preservation of our freedom and morality depends on our citizens placing principled men in office. If we fail in this obligation, our government will soon be corrupted, and laws will be made that are not for the public good. Corrupt or incompetent men will end up being appointed to be judges, and the rights of our citizens will be violated or outright disregarded.

Americans are blessed with the freedom to organize, campaign, vote and write to their Senators and Congressmen. If they allow apathy to cause them to ignore that freedom, they may find themselves someday being held accountable for that apathy.

It seems to reason that if Christians neglect their civil duty, they should not expect deliverance from the national consequences to follow. On the other hand, when Christians do the opposite and diligently fulfill not just their duty toward God, but also their civic duty to their government, they set the stage for His blessings on their land. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice” Proverbs 29:2 and Righteousness exalts a nation. Proverbs 14:34.

Some Christians say that rather than voting and being otherwise involved in government, we should obey I Timothy 2:1, 2 which says that we should just pray for rulers. Continuing, they say that by being involved in the government, we might be working against God's power to choose rulers according to His will.

Think on this for a moment. God instructs us in Matthew 6:11 to pray for our daily bread. Does this mean we should just sit back and let God do it all, or should we try to find a job and let God use us as the means to answer the prayer? Should we avoid looking for a job because we might take a job other than the one God in His providence wanted us to take?

In III John 2, we are instructed to pray for good health. Some people mistakenly believe that going to a doctor shows a lack of faith in God's power to answer prayer. Yet Christians know that the doctor may be the very means God uses to answer the prayer!

By default, all Americans are participants in political involvement. By participating, we have the opportunity of voting for our elected officials and for ensuring that we have proper and decent laws and traditions. If we truly believe our government was divinely ordained and instituted by God, this freedom and opportunity should not only be enjoyed, it should be exercised.

Christians who vote but are at the same time against writing to their Congressmen and Senators could be confused. These Christians mistakenly say that voting is one thing, but writing to their leaders is meddling in God’s plan. What then, is voting? Casting a vote can also be defined as meddling in God’s plan. The very act of voting is the same as voicing one’s opinions.

Christians should not be passive spectators in society's culture. While our primary task may the Great Commission, we are to engage our culture at all levels, advancing moral principles and seeking to restrain evil.

President blasts Louisiana’s efforts to fight the advances of oil slick

Speaking from the security of his teleprompter, the President was quick to criticize Louisiana’s Governor for his defiant announcement that he was going to take matters in his own hands regarding the advancing oil slick. With a double-barreled attack against the governor, the President said that such a move by the State of Louisiana was quite possibly discriminatory and perhaps even unconstitutional. He warned that his administration would not stand for such behavior, and he would immediately appoint a czar who would in turn form a team of experts to determine if Louisiana’s actions are unconstitutional. In addition the President announced that should Louisiana actually incarcerate any of the alleged illegal oil slick, the U.S. government would not necessarily process that undocumented oil referred to them by the State of Louisiana. Let me be clear, said the President. I will never let a good crisis go to waste when there’s a chance to make my big government even bigger than it already is.

Not one to take the President’s criticism lying down, the governor shot back that he wouldn’t have to go to such extremes if the federal government would merely enforce current policies against oil spills coming ashore. Nevertheless, the Louisiana Governor plans to proceed with his plan even it means that he will have to go to jail. He has been waiting and waiting for the federal government to provide millions of feet in booms and build new barrier islands to keep the unwanted oil from reaching his shore line, but nothing ever happens.

It’s true that current U.S. laws and regulations prohibit oil spills from making landfall, but the administration has been notoriously lax in enforcing those laws. The President warned that any effort to thwart the unending advances of the illegal immigration of the oil slick could very easily lead to unfair profiling practices. Still speaking from his ever-present teleprompter, the President said that while the nation’s citizens, and especially Louisiana’s residents rightfully may not want the uninvited oil to cross their shores, they should understand that the oil has been unduly repressed and held against its will below the earth’s surface for millennia. As anyone knows, the U.S. is viewed around the world as a land of plenty and opportunity. Who can blame the oil for wanting to exist in a better place?

The President expressed grave concerns that if Louisiana goes forward with pushing back against the oil slick, they could easily slip into discriminatory profiling. Doing so could lead to other substances, and even certain life forms being targeted for deportation. There are many legal residents of the United States that don’t deserve being subjected to the profiling that is likely to occur under Louisiana’s new policies. Just think about it. The oil is black when it emerges from below ground, but after spending weeks floating around in the Gulf of Mexico, it can take on a brown, or even a dirty white appearance. In any case, it is always slippery. The President so eloquently pointed out that the sure-to-come profiling could possibly target certain legal U.S. residents such as the Black Sea Turtle, the Brown Crab, the White Grunt which is a tasty salt water fish, and various slippery sea critters. In addition to the potential profiling of the aforementioned life forms, other inorganic substances could be discriminated against. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that mud, which is brown in color, could easily be scooped up and disposed of along with the undesirable oil.

The whole idea of indiscriminately rounding up the invasive oil slick is repulsive, said the President. All summer long, human beach lovers douse themselves in oil until their bodies shimmer in the bright noon-day sun. Don’t the rocks and sand along the shores of Lousiana have a right to the same pleasures? Perhaps they too, would like to have a soothing coating of oil.

Mirroring the President’s stance, California’s legislature immediately called for all of its citizens to boycott Louisiana. New Orleans holds no unique attraction to us, said one Senator. After all, we’ve got San Francisco. We have enough odd balls here to satisfy anyone’s lust for pleasure and entertainment. One West Coast liberal went so far as to call the owner of the New Orleans Saints and pressured him to move his club to another state.

Not necessarily on the President’s Band Wagon, a radio personality was quick to jump into the fray, nevertheless. Mr. Beck immediately doubled his efforts to promote the purchase of gold. Asked what gold had to do with an oil spill, he said that he buys gold, not as an investment, but as insurance. And what better thing is there to insure against than millions of gallons of oil washing ashore.

How this latest chain of events ends up is anyone’s guess. We will keep you posted.

(This is a spoof of the way we are handling the oil spill in light of the way we are handling the Arizona illegal immigration law)

U.S. Federal Court Rules That Doing Business With The Boy Scouts Is Unlawful

On May 3, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn a lower court’s ruling that the Boy Scouts can no longer lease city-owned parkland in San Diego because the group is a religious organization.

A California U.S. District judge had earlier ruled that the City of San Diego acted improperly when it leased 18 acres of camp space to the Scouts because the group is a religious organization. The judge said the lease violated federal law that prohibits the government promotion of religion.

It all got started when with the help of the ACLU, a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple filed a lawsuit regarding the one-dollar per year lease agreement between the Scouts and the City. The lesbian couple had a beef with the Scouts due to their policy against using homosexuals to lead the scouts. The agnostic couple was against the Scouts due to their recognition of God.

The ACLU found a loophole in the law, permitting them to sue the city and the scouts. This loophole was centered around San Diego’s non-discrimination policy which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and religion.

The lawsuit argued that the city’s lease agreement with the scouts amounts to a subsidy of a religious organization that is violating the city’s non-discrimination law. The Federal Court ruled in favor of the two couples because they “suffered injury-in-fact.” What sort of injury did these couples suffer? Apparently, they suffered some sort of mental trauma when they avoided using the city park due to the Boy Scouts publicly expressed disapproval of lesbians, atheists and agnostics. The judge said that the city’s one-dollar lease to the Boy Scouts violates the state’s ban on support for religions.

The federal judge ruled against the Boy Scouts even though an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling stated that the Boy Scouts is a private organization with a First Amendment right to exclude gay people from its ranks.

Isn't it amazing that four people have the power to overturn the wishes of untold thousands of other people? How is it that the few can rule the many in today's society. The policies of non-discrimination started out as a necessary and a proper direction for our country to take. However, over the years, the definition of discrimination has evolved radically. To learn just how much and why, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to www.shadowtruthbook.com for ordering information.

Kansas Spreads Out the Welcome Mat for Late Term Abortions

The Governor of Kansas has thrown his hat into the ring for ensuring that Kansas remains the Late-Term Abortion Capital of the United States. A bill requiring doctors to furnish the specific diagnosis justifying a late-term abortion was vetoed by Governor Mark Parkinson on April 16, 2010.

The bill would have helped law enforcement agencies determine if late-term abortions done after viability are being done in compliance with the law. “Viability” is the point at which the fetus becomes potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, which is typically agreed to be around 24 weeks, even though there are living and breathing people who were born after only 21 weeks gestational age.

In defending his decision, Governor Parkinson said that according to his viewpoint, all abortions are tragedies, which is why he would encourage women who have unwanted pregnancies to consult with their partners, families, doctors and spiritual advisors. He also said that he would not encourage women to consult with state legislators, as this is a private decision and should not be dictated by public officials. Due to the fact that “viability” means that a child is capable of living outside of the mother’s womb, a frivolous late-term abortion is equivalent to murder. Yet the governor says that these procedures are strictly a woman’s decision, and the law has no place in the matter.

Peter Brownlie, chief executive officer and president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri said he is grateful that the governor vetoed the bill. Brownlie continued, saying that he wished the Kansas legislature would focus on passing the state’s budget rather than engaging in a sham exercise in political posturing. In addition to those remarks, he said that the Kansas legislature should stop wasting time playing political games with women’s health.

Kansas’ current state law bans abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy unless a physician certifies that continuing the pregnancy would cause serious harm to the woman. But currently, doctors are not required to provide the specific diagnosis justifying the abortion. “What,” you may ask, “does the governor’s veto do?” It ensures that the existing laws on late-term abortions cannot and will not be enforced.

In Kansas, doctors may perform late-term abortions if they believe that the pregnancy seriously threatens the mental or physical health of the would-be mother. According to abortion opponents, that provision means that some of the procedures are carried out for reasons as flimsy as not wanting to miss a school dance. In 2008, there were 323 late-term abortions performed in Kansas.

This veto was rendered by a man who was put in office by an electorate made up of a Christian majority. How is it that laws are made and manipulated by representatives who have been put in office by supposedly life-respecting people? For an in depth revelation of our society’s slow but sure move to the dark side, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for ordering information.

National Day of Prayer is Unconstitutional

On April 15, 2010, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of Wisconsin ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. Bowing to the loud voice of The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics, she determined that the federal law establishing a National Day of Prayer violates the “establishment of religion” clause of the Constitution. The Crabb ruling generated outright glee among atheists, agnostics and others who decry any government acknowledgement of any religion as a danger.

Despite the fact that the National Day of Prayer law compels no one to pray, mandates no expenditure of federal tax dollars, is not made a part of public school curriculums and establishes no penalty whatsoever for those who choose to ignore the day, the federal judge said the law didn’t pass constitutional muster.

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” Crabb wrote.

The National Day of Prayer has roots back to the Continental Congress in 1775, but was officially established by an act of Congress — which established the day in 1952 during the Truman administration.

The federal judge’s ruling was the result of a very vocal segment of our society that is bent on forcing faith out of the public square. It’s all about a movement to establish a nation that is free from religion. Although this nation is currently made up of a Christian majority, such rulings are becoming law due to the fact that our “Closet Christians” refuse to speak their minds.

For an in-depth understanding of society’s slow, but gradual move to the left, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for ordering information.

The Government Has Big Plans For Grandma

Seniors, for the first time since 1975, you are being told that you won’t be receiving an annual cost of living increase in your monthly Social Security benefits. At the same time, your Medicare premiums are going up. Not to worry though, your compassionate and caring government isn’t abandoning you. You may have less money to spend this next year, but on the other hand, you may not have to live on such meager funds for long because your government is going to help you plan on how long you need to continue living. Section 1233 of House Bill 3200 intends to help you make plans on the manner in which you should die. In the government’s eyes, that’s great news for you, and it’s great news for the government. If you’re dead, you won’t need to be concerned about not receiving an increase in your monthly benefits, and your government won’t have to spend any more money out of its already over-stretched budget. It’s a win-win situation for everyone involved.

Under this new law, doctors will be paid for having an advance care planning consultation with a patient. Are you frightened? Don’t worry. The consultation won’t be mandatory, at least not for now. That’s how Shadow Truth laws and cultures begin. Once instituted however, the door can easily be opened for mandatory implementation.

Who is it that must listen to these end-of-life consultations? The crippled? The sick? The terminally ill? No, your government will set up this program for the benefit of every person who becomes a certain age. That is the time when doctors will consult with you about the various end-of-life services that are available.

So imagine if you will, a healthy and athletic 70 year old who sees his doctor about a simple injury. Because of his age, his doctor will discuss the undeniable fact that he isn’t getting any younger; therefore it’s time for him to decide how he is going to pass on from this life to the next.

On the other end of the spectrum, imagine an 85 year old non-productive and non-athletic person who needs to have his hip replaced due to an accidental fall on an icy sidewalk. In this case, the doctor may tell him that his Universal Health coverage won’t pay for his needed surgery due to his advanced age, but it will be happy to provide plenty of pain pills. “By the way, the doctor will say, “it’s really time for us to discuss your end-of-life options.”

In many states, the end-of-life discussion will be focused on enlightenment regarding available services such as hospice, and the withholding of nutrients and hydration. However, for those citizens who live in the states of Oregon, Washington and Montana, receiving a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs will also be discussed.

Technically, under this new law, a patient will not be required to take part in that advance care planning consultation. If the patient refuses that consultation however, the physician may not be able to provide any other medical services. This would be due to the fact that the government would not be willing to pay for additional services to patients who refuse to participate in the end-of-life consultation.

One by one, states are changing their laws to fit in with the federal government’s plans for its senior citizens. Montana has followed the lead of Oregon and Washington, to permit physician-assisted suicide. In December, 2009, the Montana Supreme Court determined that withholding nutrients and hydration is not compassionate enough. Now, doctors can prescribe drugs for the purpose of ending a person’s life more quickly.

How did this happen? The utilization of step-by-step reasoning and logic led to this decision. The court determined that the prohibition of assisted suicide violates the right to privacy and the right to dignity guaranteed in the Montana constitution. The court determined that it is a fundamental right for people to die with dignity—meaning in the case at hand, to commit suicide by a drug overdose.

Following a flawed progression of logic, the court determined that in the absence of an overdose of drugs (a dignified method of suicide), a person is left with no choice but to end his life by gunshot or some otherwise unpleasant method that violates his dignity and peace of mind. Missing from the court’s reasoning was any discussion regarding the necessity of suicide in the first place.

A major contributing factor to Montana’s pro-suicide decision was a previous Montana decision regarding the legality of abortions. That previous ruling suggested that the Montana Constitution demands that people have for themselves the moral right and moral responsibility to confront the most fundamental questions of life in general, and answering to their own consciences and convictions.

Step by imperceptible step, society is leading us down a path we don’t want to travel on. Montana’s suicide law, and the U.S. Government’s law regarding end-of-life discussions are in the news today. What else, is going on that you haven’t heard about? If you only knew the news that conveniently doesn’t make it to the front page of your newspaper, you would be shocked and horrified. Read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. In this book, you will get a bird’s eye perspective of the many seemingly unrelated events that are deviously intertwined into one common purpose. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ and order your copy today. You'll be glad you did.

Is it Irresponsible to Have Babies?

Jonathon Porritt, a British government advisor has stated that couples who have more than two children are being irresponsible by creating an unbearable burden on the world's environment. This supporter of the Sustainable Development Commission and patron of the Optimum Population Trust believes that population control will have a greater impact on the reduction of Global Warming than any other program. He has been attributed to the statement that the curbing of population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming, and that the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curbing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

More and more, governments are being pressured to institute mandatory programs for reducing population growth. The British Optimum Population Trust states that the lifetime CO2 emissions of just one UK citizen are equivalent of 620 airline flights between London and New York. The Chinese government, which has had a one-child family policy for quite some time now, states that through its program, it has prevented at least 400 million births. China proudly boasts that its population control program has resulted in the greatest CO2 abatement achievement since Kyoto came into force.

The Optimum Population Trust produced a briefing which stated that the world finally woke up to the climate change problem in 2007. Continuing on, the briefing stated that one of the fundamental causes of climate change is human population growth. This influential organization purports that the most effective and also the most cost-effective global climate change strategy is achieved through limiting the size of the world's population.

Abortion is the new contraceptive. By steadily re-defining abortion as a woman’s right to eliminate that which is not much more than so much biological tissue from her body, our society is preparing itself to devalue human life even further. Britain has become the abortion capital of Europe, ranking fifth in the world behind Russia, the U.S. India and Japan. Teenage pregnancy rates in Britain have skyrocketed over the past decade with half of all pregnancies among girls under 18 now ending in abortion.

Who would have ever thought that governments would consider mandatory child-birth policies as the number one method of saving money and reducing the world’s carbon footprint? Who would have thought that one day, abortion would be a required solution to a couple’s indiscretions? Could it be that someday soon, the world’s most popular slogan could be, “Save the world tomorrow—kill a human today?”

The information in this posting was snatched right out of today’s news. What else is going on in the realm of population control? Read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. You will be shocked and dismayed. Do you have the courage to recognize what is going on right under your nose? Do you have an interest in changing the direction that our world is heading? Get this book today—don’t delay. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ and order your book while there is still time to get the word out.

Government is Watching

Privacy is rapidly disappearing. Step by step, citizens are permitting their governments to observe and regulate that which should be private activities. In 2010, it has been reported that privacy in the Netherlands has been drastically reduced.

Citizens have become accustomed to receiving speeding fines which are generated by ever-present cameras and radar machines located along many thoroughfares. This policy was accepted by the citizens because it seemed to be both civilized and efficient.

It didn’t take long however for the ever-present cameras to take on a new responsibility. The country’s police forces began using automatic recognition systems to spot car number plates which match people with criminal records. This gradual increase in privacy invasion was accepted because it was promoted as a way to find and catch the unlawful segments of the population. Initially, the police destroyed evidence of all license plates that were not tied to known criminals.

Recently however, police forces have been retaining all license numbers of automobiles traveling on certain roads. As a result, a large number of ordinary, law-abiding citizens are being placed on police records even though they have done nothing wrong. What is the justification for such an increase in privacy invasion? The police want to create a data base on citizens who utilize certain roads too often. This new policy is permitting government to restrict activities and infringe on the privacy and rights of all citizens, criminals or not. With this information, the government will have the means and the power to restrict driving time, as well as to tax citizens on the distances they drive.

But that's in the Netherlands, you might say. That's not happening here in America. Well, next time you get in you car, take a look around. There are traffic-monitoring cameras at nearly every intersection and every toll booth. The infrastructure is in place. All it takes for a similar policy to come to your door step, is for some government official to sign his name on a privacy-changing new policy. It could happen here overnight.

Little by little, we give up our rights and our privacy. With every concession, we the citizens, become weaker and weaker, and our governing authorities become stronger and stronger. Read “Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception” by Larry J Tate to find out just how much you and I have compromised that which we hold dear. Not only will you have your eyes opened up to situations that are going on right under your nose, but you will find out how easily you can reverse those grievous wrongs. To order your copy, find Shadow Truth description in the right-hand column in this blog.

Is your government in the business of attacking Family Values?

The 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed by Congress and signed by the President may have some disturbing effects on the future of family values. With little fanfare, provisions within this law have the potential to devalue life, weaken our society and undermine our families.

Among the provisions of the law are the following:

Abstinence-based education programs were defunded and replaced with condom-based sex education programs.

A needle exchange program was funded which will allow drug addicts to exchange their used needles for new needles. Out-of-control political correctness is now causing our law makers to down-play the illegality of drug usage, and instead enabling the harmful activity by suggesting that they are in the business of preventing the spread of infections.

So-called Family Planning funding has been increased from $10 million to over $300 million, with the largest recipient being Planned Parenthood.

Through the back door, this new law is supporting China’s mandatory one-child policy.

Public funding for abortions in Washington D.C. was enabled.

A legalized medical marijuana provision was inserted into the law.

Step-by-step, our government is attacking our basic family values. For an in-depth view of the attack on family values, Read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.tatebook.com/ and also go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm2739.cfm

Is Spanking Harmful?

More and more modern parents are abandoning physical punishment of their children, and embracing the more politically-correct timeout, along with other non-physical methods of discipline.

A corporal punishment study was done by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Her findings, announced early in 2010, stated that claims for not spanking children simply fail to hold up.

She found that children who were physically disciplined actually performed better than those who weren’t disciplined. This included school grades, optimism, outlook on life, willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college. In addition to that, they weren’t any more likely to get involved in fights or become depressed. She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems.

A study done by the University of Akron found that children raised where there is a legal ban on parental corporal punishment more likely to be involved in crime. This study focused on Sweden which implemented a complete ban on physical discipline about 30 years ago. The study found that teen violence tended to increase among children who grew up under the spanking ban.

Other countries, such as Germany, Italy and New Zealand have also adopted bans on spanking. In New Zealand, the use of force to correct children actually entails criminal penalties. In that country, a parent isn’t even permitted to take a child’s hand and force him to go where the child refuses to go.

There are plenty of feel-good organizations that are promoting anti-spanking policies. In the United States, the National Association of Social Workers states that all physical punishment has harmful effects and should be stopped. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that spanking is less effective than the timeout. In 2007, the California government actually attempted to pass legislation to impose a ban on spanking children. Thankfully, that legislation did not become law.

To learn more about non-physical child discipline and other politically-correct tendencies of our modern society, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.tatebook.com/ or http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/.

Obama's Political Correctness at Work

In a move that is being hailed by gays, lesbians and transgendered persons, President Obama made his first appointment of a transgender person to a federal post. Amanda Simpson, formerly known as Mitch, was appointed to be the new Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce in the first week of January, 2010.

Until this point, Obama walked a fine line when dealing with members of the gay and transgender community. He was widely supported by gay voters in 2008, but soon came under harsh criticism from many of those same proponents for not acting fast or hard enough to expand their rights.

Equality among mankind dictates that discrimination must be done away with. Consequently, we as a nation were right to end discrimination against blacks and women. We were right to guarantee the same rights to housing, jobs and opportunities to every person regardless of their race or gender.

Now, the term "discrimination" is morphing into a new definition. Now, the choice a person makes regarding the gender they want to be is somehow entering the field of "discrimination." Appointing a black person to a high position is a right, thanks to our anti-discrimination laws. However, this latest appointment falls under the "New Political Correctness" frame of mind.

LGBT rights groups are overjoyed at the "progress" being made by this appointment. Amanda claims that he/she is highly qualified for this position, and that qualification should be the only factor to consider for such an appointment. However, he/she is concerned that his/her appointment will be labeled as a token that was hired because of his/her sexual identity rather than on his/her merits. He/she has expressed worries that his/her appointment was merely to fill a quota or to appease the LGBT groups.

One of the first statements of this new appointee is that he/she is excited about the opportunity to see hundreds of other transgenders being promoted as a result of his/her latest appointment.

In looking at many of the President's choices, it is clear that the new political correctness dictated this most recent appointment. The President's choices reflect his promotion of transgenerism. This new definition of discrimination is deconstructing one of the most fundamental concepts known to mankind. This appontment, and other similar appointments are effectively asking the rest of society to radically reorder the ways in which our culture views "gender."

To see where this sort of re-definition of discrimination is taking us, read "Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception" by Larry J. Tate. For further information, go to http://www.tatebook.com/ or go to http://shadowtruthbook.com/.

Today's Issues

Uncertainty seems to the in everyone’s thoughts today. Where are we today? How did we get to where we are now? Where are we going tomorrow? Is our nation heading for a decline?

Troubling issues are swirling around us and throwing us around like a tornado. We hear that human-caused Global Warming is going to change the face of the earth. On the other hand, we are witnessing record-low temperatures. Scientists and politicians on one side are debunking those on the other side. We, the common people are getting dizzy trying to choose which side is the right side.

The stock market is in free-fall. Gasoline prices went through the roof. Then they went to the basement. To hear our politicians talk, we would be led to believe that fuel prices need to go back up again. What? Up again?

Banks and insurance companies are failing. Auto makers are on the brink of bankruptcy. Housing prices are falling. The government is printing money and bailing out failing entities. The dollar is growing weak when compared to other world currencies. Our leaders are developing financial recovery plans. Economic fears are discussed in nearly every news article we see. Many of our leaders believe we need to pay more taxes. Others say we need to implement Universal Health Care. Social Security is said to be insolvent.

How can we deal with all of these uncertainties? Many answers are being suggested. Debates are getting heated. Which answer is the best answer? Who really knows?

Our government is going forward with its intended cure for our many ills. Is that good enough? As always we, the people should not sit idly by while others make our decisions for us. Each and every one of us has the responsibility to make our own decisions for our own future. Don’t wait for others to decide our fate. Do what our forefathers did in the face of adversity: press forward and do everything you know to do for yourself, your family, and your community. Make good decisions and go forward with your life.

There are many answers to the world’s problems. But, the most important answer is becoming increasingly overlooked. The most stabilizing force in the world is a deep and profound belief in God. Our proof-oriented society is drifting toward discarding a walk with God that was an important part of our fore-father’s lives. In addition to moving forward and doing all we know to do for our financial lives, we must also live for God like we have never done before.

God’s blessings will overtake us as individuals, as a nation, and as a world. Today’s issues will begin dissolving before our very eyes.

Larry Tate

Rights of the Child Treaty is at our Door Step

Senator Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify the United Nations measure known as “The Rights of the Child Treaty. This treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995, but it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Nearly every country in the world (193 nations) is party to the treaty -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not.

To the casual observer, approving a child’s rights treaty is a no-brainer. After all, the world’s children deserve basic human rights. However, there are many problems with this innocent-sounding treaty. Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, the treaty would be rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding America’s preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States. An outside body of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland would have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined, amounting to an erosion of American sovereignty.

The U.N. very craftily says that it has no way to enforce the treaty or punish those nations that fail to follow its precepts. However, it can be very difficult for a nation to extract itself from a treaty once it has been implemented. We should understand that where a child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government.

This treaty has the potential to mount a gross assault on parental rights, and it could rob the U.S. of sovereignty. If implemented, it will intrude on the family and it will strip parents of the power to raise their children without government interference. Parental rights groups see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit. Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes. The treaty could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion.

According to the Parental Rights website, the treaty dictates that: Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children; children would have the ability to choose their own religion; the government would have the ability to override every decision made by every parent; a child would have the right to seek a governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed; teaching children about Christianity in schools would not be permitted; parents will not be able to opt their children out of sex education at school; children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent. The government would decide what is in the best interest of a child in every case. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives. If the parents thinks the child should go to church three times a week, but he child wants to go to church only once a week, the government would be able to decide what is in the best interest of the child.

It takes a two-thirds Senate majority to implement the treaty, not too difficult with a current democrat majority in the Senate. It is time for us to wake up and vote for conservative leaders who will protect us from such treaties and laws.

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"


Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.


And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.


Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.