"We see, in many a land, the proudest dynasties and tyrannies still crushing, with their mountain weight, every free motion of the Consciences and hearts of men. We see, on the other hand, the truest heroism for the right and the greatest devotion to the Truth in hearts that God has touched. We have a work to do, as great as our forefathers and, perhaps, far greater. The enemies of Truth are more numerous and subtle than ever and the needs of the Church are greater than at any preceding time. If we are not debtors to the present, then men were never debtors to their age and their time. Brethren, we are debtors to the hour in which we live. Oh, that we might stamp it with Truth and that God might help us to impress upon its wings some proof that it has not flown by neglected and unheeded." -- C.H. Spurgeon . . . "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31, 32 . . . . .


Bookmark and Share

Monday, July 13, 2009


By: A.M. Kisly

Yesterday, several people sent me a news article posted by the New York Post. The contents just annoys me beyond words. Sometimes you just want to start knocking some heads together. But before I get into that story, the following must be said.


I’ll say it again. No human institution can take the place of God!
We must all make up our own minds as to where we draw the line. Do we protest and march at rallies? Do we picket at abortion clinics? Do parents send their children to public school knowing they will be taught how to be immoral? Do Christian students fall in line with the university’s “politically correct” policy? Do we stay silent for fear of retaliation of government leaders? Do we remain inactive as our Constitution and our rights are taken away before our eyes? Where do we draw the line?

I believe that we cannot afford to stay silent in the face adversity or by the force of evilness. We must stand in the evil day. I believe that as Christians we must look beyond our own walls of self-preservation and be concerned about the future of mankind.

During the time of WWII as Hitler attempted to take the world by force, German Theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, believed that the church had the obligation of “jamming the spokes of the wheel” so that the state might not be able to do its ghastly deeds without a struggle. He believed that even if the church should lose those battles, it was necessary that they be fought. We must not retreat into dishonorable silence, but advance proclaiming the truth and the message of the Gospel of Salvation. 

 We must share the hope that is within us. We must stand for righteousness and speak out against everything that is contrary to the truth!
Taking a stand for what is true, for that which is right, what is good, what is just, and what is of God is our duty and privilege.

 It is honorable and right. Why would anyone think otherwise? It is not for our sakes alone, but for the sake of our families as well as future generations, should the Lord tarry.
So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” Galatians 6:10

By the way, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the Nazi Black Guards on April 9th 1945, just days before the war ended.

In Erwin Lutzer’s book “Hitler’s Cross”, he talks about patriotism and civil disobedience. He states,
“We must support our government, but we must be ready to criticize it or even defy it when necessary. Patriotism is commendable when it is for a just cause. Every nation has the right to defend itself, the right to expect the government to do what is best for its citizens.”

 A government of the people, by the people and for the people should do what is in our best interest and not of their own self interest. He adds that if the church in Germany during WWII taught us anything at all, it is the dangers of blind obedience to government. 

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” 1 Peter 3:15

Every believer must be able to give a rationale for his or her faith, defending the supremacy of Christ over all other alternatives.
Being a Christian is more than going to church, listening to messages, and singing hymns. The Bible says that if any man come after me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross and follow me. The cost of discipleship is the crucifixion of the flesh. There is no place for the philosophy of “self preservation”.

He who has an ear to hear…..listen up!

If we are to be effective in the public arena, our private relationship with God is where it begins. The only way to break down the barrier between the Christian faith and the rest of the human race is at the foot of the cross. The Cross where Jesus was crucified is where the hope that man is looking for can be found, and where the redemption that man needs is obtained. The cross of Jesus Christ stands above all philosophies, politics and the ways of man.
If Jesus was willing to go to the cross on our behalf…I’m wondering, how many are willing to go to the cross on behalf of others?

With that said, here’s the News Alert!

Obama’s quest to have complete power over the hearts and minds of the citizens of our nation continues to flabbergast me.
Last week we posted an article about Helen Thomas’s outburst in a press conference with the Whitehouse Press Secretary. Her claims that this administration seeks to have total control of the news media (or what is reported in the news) is just the tip of the iceberg. It is my opinion that Obama would like to silence anyone who opposes him on any of the issues facing our system of democracy.

The following story was published in the New York Post on July 11, 2009 by Kyle Smith.

When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings.

He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now.

Sunstein is President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It's the bland titles that should scare you the most.
"Although obscure," reported the Wall Street Journal, "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."

Sunstein was appointed, no doubt, off the success of "Nudge," his previous book, which suggests that government ought to gently force people to be better human beings.
Czar is too mild a world for what Sunstein is about to become. How about "regulator in chief"? How about "lawgiver"? He is Obama's Obama.

In "On Rumors," Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire."

That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet," he writes.

"We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"
I can’t wait to see who decides what is a falsehood. I suspect anything that doesn’t go along with Obama’s or Sunstein’s view of the world. “Sunstein questions the current libel standard - which requires proving "actual malice" against those who write about public figures, including celebrities.

 Mere "negligence" isn't libelous, but Sunstein wonders, "Is it so important to provide breathing space for damaging falsehoods about entertainers?" Celeb rags, get ready to hire more lawyers.
Sunstein also believes that - whether you're a blogger, The New York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your commenters say. Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

 "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for commenters on service providers would be "a considerable burden."

But who cares about a burden when insults are being bandied about? "A 'chilling effect' on those who would spread destructive falsehoods can be an excellent idea," he says.
"As we have seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." 

What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.
He alludes on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) to the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists."

Since Sunstein intends to impose his Big Chill on such talk, I'd better get this in while I can. The "rumor," i.e., "fact," about the palsy-walsyness of Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election.

The facts got out, voters weighed them and ruled that they weren't disqualifying.”
Disheartening to say the least that anyone would overlook his past record, but I’ll go a bit further and add this about his background, that Obama has been a Communist ever since his high school days in Hawaii. He dropped his official enrollment in the various Communist parties to join the Democrat party when he ran for state government, but has maintained close ties with the Communist party.

Obama stated that a mentor to him in Hawaii was Frank Marshall Davis, who was a card carrying member of the old Communist Party USA.

He writes in his book that when he was 'confused', he would seek out communist rallies with Marxist speakers. While at Columbia, he met Bill Ayers, who was a prominent Communist, and befriended Edward Said, who was the President of Columbia's Communist Party.

The Obama campaign has hired many former communists, and the ones that have been exposed have been fired or quit. For example, Obama's Muslim outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi.
Obama's health care, tax, welfare, spending, and foreign relations policies have all started at highly communist points.

During the primary, and final campaigns, he tempered his policies to address all criticisms, but 'off camera' moments have revealed that Obama still very much intends to carry through with his original, highly socialist and communist plans. In fact he has proven this in his actions in what is now only six months in the oval office.
“Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.

Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.

How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court. Sunstein, trying to fair, argues that libel awards should be capped at $15,000, or at least limited for anyone demonstrating financial hardship.

But $15K is the limit you'd pay to your opponent. The legal bill is the scary part, and the reason bloggers already have plenty of reason to be careful about what they say, even if they don't much fear a libel conviction.
Sunstein dreams of an impossibly virtuous America:

 "We could also imagine a future in which those who spread false rumors are categorized as such, discounted and marginalized . . . people would approach rumors skeptically even they provide comfort and fit their own biases."

But if his chilling wind doesn't work, Sunstein may try to make good on the implicit threat that runs through his book: that he would redefine libel as the spread of false information and hold everyone up the ladder responsible.
If this happened, the blogosphere would turn into Pluto overnight.

Comments sections would slam shut. Every writer would work on a leash shorter than a shoelace.
Sunstein is an enemy to every news organization and blogger. We should return the favor and declare war on him.” Remember Hitler promised the removal of all democratic ways of thought. He sought to be a “leader state” not a republic. I said this at the start, I’ll say it again,

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:12a)

We must all make up our own minds as to where we draw the line. We must all stand for something, choose you this day whom you will serve, the world…..or God’s Son!
After much consideration, I have decided to post the following video,"We The People". You may or may not agree with the contents of this video. You might find some portions offensive. It is however a good example of a "do something" mentality, and not a continuation of the same "do nothing" mentality that has been embraced by today's society. It is thought provoking to say the least. I pray that it instills courage and squelches cowardice, that it imparts thoughtful consideration as we exchange inaction for action.


James J. Fire said...

An article in The Berean Call that weighs the Christian faith against being a patriotic American, and ponders on where one ends and the other begins has me rather troubled; how we as Christians deal with issues such as presented in this article of yours is something that each and every one of us, as Christians must consider. Somehow I doubt there will be a blanket answer, a one-size-fits-all solution.
For myself, I am prepared to conduct this battle in the spiritual realm, w/o bullets or other carnal weapons. At the same time, I understand and support those who feel that they must fulfill their duty bound obligation in accord to the 2nd amendment.
I am prayerfully considering writing a letter of rebuttal to the article posted in The Berean Call, but I will need much prayer and wisdom before I set pen to paper. This is NOT an easy issue to resolve!
In the meanwhile, let me say any nation that has their freedom of speech taken away, as well as freedom of expression, and freedom of religion, is a nation of slaves, jumping at the cracking whip of a government that feels its entitled to give and take away rights (what they refer to as 'privileges') at their whim.
G. Washington said it best: "Government is like a fire: it makes for a very good servant if controlled, but if left to run amok, it is a hideous monster that devours all indiscriminantly."

A.M. Kisly said...

Hey James,

Good hearing from you again and thanks for your insight.

I am in agreement that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. We must all search our own hearts to answer this question.

I know that as Christians, we are not to become entangled in the affairs of men, however, I'd like to point out that no one in the history of civilization has had the freedom we have had in this country.

Also, our current president and his administration were ELECTED by US. We have the right...to boot them out! Tell them NO! Peaceful Protests and so on.

According to the LAW of this land, the Scripture...obey the law of the land...means to abide by our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights...etc.

To my knowledge Obama does not own us personally as we are not slaves, nor does he own our country, nor the Constitution of the United States, nor the Bill of Rights...nor anything accept what he has earned, just like EVERY CITIZEN of this country.

Have we forgotten that the laws of this land are somewhat different than in any other place or time in history.

In my view this is a legitimate argument and must be considered.

I will have to read what our brother in Christ wrote on the subject. I myself am pretty convinced that there is nothing wrong in civil disobedience, for the right reason, and because our laws give us the right to do so.

I do agree that the real battle is on our knees before God and His throne of grace. He alone can move mountains, and may this mountain be removed!