Saturday, March 23, 2019

America's Future Is Best Seen in History's Mirror

At some point in the not-too-near future, America as we know it will collapse.

The loss of liberties has been gradual for over a century, but near the end of this Republic we call the United States, individual liberties shall disappear under the shadow of Caesarism.

Caesarism is by definition "a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc."

In 1957, historian and Americanist Amaury de Riencourt predicted America's eventual downfall as a Republic in his classic work The Coming Caesars. To read Riencourt's sixty-year-old book is like reading today's newspaper.

My friend Tim Price has written a new forward to Riencourt's magnum opus, reformatted the original text, and has issued a new edition of The Coming Caesars.

Every follower of Jesus who identifies as a political conservative in the United States, and for that matter, every follower of Jesus who identifies as a political liberal in the United States should read The Coming Caesars.

Riencourt rightly believed America's Founders modeled the new Republic (America) after Rome's Republic (est. 509 BC). He traced Roman republicanism and Grecian democracy to their respective ends, arguing that any government modeled after Rome or Greece is destined to end in Caesarism.

The major premise of Riencourt's 1957 work is found on page 5.
"Expanding democracy leads unintentionally to imperialism and that imperialism inevitably ends in destroying the republican institutions of earlier days; further, the greater the social equality, the dimmer the prospects of liberty, and that as society becomes more equalitarian, it tends increasingly to concentrate absolute power in the hands of one single man. Caesarism is not a dictatorship, not the result of one man's overriding ambition, not a brutal seizure of power through revolution. It is not based on a specific doctrine or philosophy. It is essentially pragmatic and untheoretical. It is a slow, often century-old, unconscious development that ends in a voluntary surrender of a free people escaping from freedom to one autocratic master."
The Coming Caesars does not promote party politics, be it Republican or Democratic, but successfully indicts Americans in both parties for allowing the power and prestige of the Presidency to rival that of a Roman Caesar. Riencourt writes
"Those who doubt that today an American President might be elected for life should remember that no constitutional amendment, such as was voted after World War II, can stand in the way of public opinion if it truly wishes to elect a Caesar for life." 
Reiecourt traces the rise of Caesarism in Rome and parallels it with the increasing willingness of Americans to follow one man in a national emergency, whether it be economic, military, or social. Riencourt argues that this willingness of the American people to give up individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution is not political or ideological; it is psychological.

It is easier to "personalize" problems and follow a powerful Caesar-like leader than it is to trust increasingly irrelevant legislative assemblies.

This, Riencourt argues, is historical fact and not political theory.

That's why the future of America is seen in history's mirror. The government of Rome collapsed in 476 AD. They'd moved from a republic to a dictatorship (Julius Caesar), then to Caesarism, and finally to ultimate annihilation as a country. The democracy of Greece followed a similar path to their destruction.

America's collapse as a country of liberty is coming as well. It's a matter of history.

I first wrote about Riencourt's work when a political liberal served as President during 2008-2016. Political conservatives affirmed what I wrote then and political liberals were silent.

I now write (again) about coming Caesarism in America, this time with a political conservative serving as President. More than likely, political liberals will affirm what I write now and political conservatives will remain silent.

That's the proof that Caesarism is already at play in the new Rome (America).

The Republic's demise is coming.

This is why followers of Jesus should understand that our ultimate citizenship "is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20) and not in the United States of America. This is why followers of Jesus should never place allegiance to a politician above reverence to the Creator of all things.  For that matter, any Christian who links a political philosophy or party leader to a representation of Jesus and His commandments is being short-sighted.

"My Kingdom is not of this world," Jesus said. You can fight for creature comforts in this world, but it's a minor battle in the grand scheme when compared to the Creator's comforts in the world to come.

May your nationalism, patriotism, and politicism for America and her President never outrank your dynamism for the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom.


Bob Cleveland said...

It was an uncomfortable revelation to me that every right a government grants to its citizens, whether it's operating a business or driving a car or carrying a weapon, must first be taken away from those same citizens.

Thank about it.....

Christiane said...

" Riencourt writes
"Those who doubt that today an American President might be elected for life should remember that no constitutional amendment, such as was voted after World War II, can stand in the way of public opinion if it truly wishes to elect a Caesar for life." "

""He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump said. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day.""
(re: Xi Jinping, President of China)

Wade Burleson said...

Bob and Christiane,

Prescient comments, both.

Christiane said...

I like to think our country is a great experiment that is still promising, or why would so many immigrants want to come here to work and to have a better life?

This country, with all of its faults and troubled history, still remains and will remain a product of the hopes of many who came here seeking a better future, and they did achieve this one generation at a time. . . . my Pepere from Canada built houses with his hands . . . his great-grandson Stephen is an architect and I understand he is a pretty good one. This country WORKS for people who come here willing to work hard. In the light of my own paternal family history, I cannot see us 'spiraling' down just yet, nope. We hit bumps in the road, we recover. 'We, the People' recover. It's in the DNA of our nation. I can't be cynical, no.

Rex Ray said...


This doesn’t sound like you. I mean “Chicken Little screamed the sky was falling”. At present, our President is struggling to last four years; much less being elected for life.

What we need to worry about are the steps America has done in committing suicide that former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm warned.

1. Have America to use more languages than English. (check)
2. Encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. (check)
3. Celebrate diversity rather than unity. Replace the ‘melting pot’ with the ‘salad bowl’ metaphor. (check)
4. Make the fastest growing group the least educated with a 50% high school dropout rate. (check)
5. Establish the cult of ‘Victim’ by minorities thinking their lack of success or persecution is the fault of the majority and start a grievance industry. (check: Black Lives Matter and Me Too Group)
6. Be labeled a “racist” if you disagree with the ‘Victim’. (check)
7. Make it impossible to enforce immigration laws. (check)

Anonymous said...

8. Use propaganda, misinformation and psychological warfare (exactly like Rome did) to keep people believing in country. Control the narrative via mainstream media so people will believe the lies and give up their liberty in exchange for "safety".

Critical thinking is a thing of the past.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Samuel Clemens

Many similar parallels applicable here in the church as well.


Rex Ray said...


I almost laughed when I read from your post: “I first wrote about Riencourt’s work when a political liberal served as President during 2008-2016.”

Is it too scary to say Obama’s name? My brother-in-law said every time he appeared on TV they had to clean their spit off the screen. :)

Yes, this post would make more sense if Obama was still president. He even said if it was legal for him to run for President again, he could have beat Trump.

In my ‘book’, Obama will be recorded as the WORST President that America has ever had. I couldn’t believe he got elected twice.

Celeste said...

Anonymous wrote: "critical thinking is a thing of the past."

In this time of information overload (so much available via the internet), we do seem to have lost our ability to think and to analyze.

I disagree with Rex's assertion that Obama will be recorded as the worst president in America. Whatever got him elected -- those forces are determined to have him remembered/recorded as the best. In a land that is now actively promoting revisionist history, those forces will continue to record him as the best. I recently observed a senate election cycle in a state south of Oklahoma (adhering to the threads goal to not state names......). The loser ran a touchy-feely campaign where, for the life of me, I could not figure out where he actually stood on issues, but he nearly defeated the incumbent senator. Now, having achieved a narrow loss, that same person is running for president and getting tons of press .

What concerns me is the celebration of diversity rather than unity. We have moved to an age where the goal is satisfy the minority rather than the majority. We have been told not to say "Merry Christmas" for fear it might offend an atheist standing next to you. I think the real danger -- a nation that was founded on "In God We Trust" has become too secular through I don't know what. I do trust in the wisdom of separation of church and state, but a Godless nation will fail.

Christiane said...

I'm for the celebration of diversity in the BEST sense of the term. In a sense, we are seeing a strange phenomenon in this country: among people who traditionally are intensely individualistic and independent now wanting our country to become lock-step politically and culturally (?), which doesn't make much sense, does it?

I think I know part of the 'why' this is happening, and it comes from influences that have a knowledge of 'lock-step, authoritative' politics but DO NOT HAVE A WESTERN TRADITION of independent thought, self-reliance, and a celebration of the great diversity of individual's gifts which can be contributed to help build up a society. In short, the 'influence' is coming from outside of our American tradition, yes. And apparently, we can expect that influence to continue to attempt to divide us as a people in near future.
The give-away? The influence coming in doesn't allow for people to think for themselves, and my goodness, Americans are nothing but a group of people who revel in their freedom to think for themselves . . . so the 'influence' uses manipulation to stir the pot and play to the darker angels of our natures, to our worries, our fears, our prejudices . . .

some thoughts

just remember the Christian model for diversity: the Holy Trinity: diversity in unity and unity in diversity, the one not destroying the other but instead, generating love, the greatest force in all existence

For those who want 'lock-step', I'm very sure our country is NOT the best place to find it, no. And that gives me encouragement, not discouragement. We don't do 'authoritative' well. We are a country that values the rule of law instead.

RB Kuter said...

I agree. Our country may have temporary reprieves from the trend toward its demise but inevitably, the shining light of America could well become dim to the point of being extinguished. It certainly seems that way given its progressive abandonment from its former emphasis on individual rights as the central government's dominance prevails.

If so, the USA empire may end up being a bright flash on the radar screen given that it is only 250 years old. Pretty much an infant compared to some former global empires. Alexander's Greece died on the vine quite rapidly. But it did make a huge impact prior to its demise. Perhaps the influence of America's positive side will continue even after its demise.

It would be sad to witness if we were not assuming the position that you describe, which is to perceive ourselves as being residents from an outside Kingdom. One takes that position of being an alien when living in another country for an extended time. You love the people of that land and the nation itself, but when things come unraveled it really does not affect you the way it does citizens of that country.

God can reverse anything He chooses, but viewing things historically, as you propose and which is typically a reliable assessment of the consequences expected from doing the same actions, we are viewing the demise of another empire.

Tom said...

Bob, sadly, if you can show me one right that you have, then I have the right to make you President of the USA even though I am not a citizen of your country simply because you have demonstrated that I have a right no matter what that right is.

People believe that we have rights, but the reality is that we have certain liberties, privileges and responsibilities granted to us within the boundaries as framed by the LAW of the land we live in.

Even within God’s “laws” we have no “rights” but only certain privileges and responsibilities if we chose to remain within those boundary conditions. Remember the parable of the wedding feast where a man claimed his “right” to be in attendance? He was exposed and soon discovered that he was not clothed in the wedding garments and because of that he was tossed out of the banquet into the Lake of Fire. What was he missing? Possibly, God draping of righteous over him.

Christianity’s Dangerous Idea by Alister McGrath sets out the argument that within the outworking of the reformation, Christianity became a dangerous idea where, if you can “read,” then you can understand the scriptures any way you want. This has played out in the foreign policies of many countries when Fundamentally flawed scriptural understanding has influenced the policy outcomes of those countries.

An example: - the belief that God wants the Israelites back in the “Promised Land” during the End Times for the End Times to move forward. An often-presented argument based on poor scholarly understanding.

It all comes down to the contextual understanding of the “scholar” in question and whether he has disciples that agree with his musings and loudly support his point of view.

Jeremiah 50-51 speaks of an ancient king of the north who caused Babylon to be devastated and desolated for a period of around 2,000 years before it was recognised once more in our recent history after WW1 to once more have God’s wrath pour out over Babylon. Then we are introduced to a second king of the north, during the time that Israel is seeking the way to Mt Zion, who rises up to lead a coalition of many nations into Babylon, but instead of destroying Babylon in line with God’s purposes for, went in with the purpose of healing the land with the introduction of democracy. Now God’s wrath is being poured out on that coalition of nations. There is even a reference to Climate warming and its consequences and, to an invasion of those nations through stealth by many, their number like locusts, who will raise up a shout against those nations.

An understanding of the contextual timeframe of Genesis 12:1 as to whether God’s promise for “Abraham to go to a land/earth, that He will show him,” was a near or distant future outcome. It is my view that the promise in the Abrahamic Covenant was a distant future event when God will reveal to Abraham and his descendants a righteous Earth to inherit after the end of the age of the ages.

Unfortunately, the English scholarly translations available today presents a near contextual future outcome in that Abraham then travelled down to the “Land” of Canaan. This flawed contextual framework has led to many misunderstandings of the prophetic biblical outcomes as framed within scripture.

Yes, history does repeat itself. You only need look at what befell the northern and then the southern kingdoms. God scattered these kingdoms to the four corners of the earth because of their idolatrous worship as a result of the visitation of the iniquities of the fathers upon their children and their children’s children.

The forming of the USA came about by the migration of persecuted people for what they believed who came to a “new land” in the hope that persecution would not follow them across the Atlantic Ocean. History is repeating itself and persecution is at the door of America, knocking, because of its fall from Grace. Other countries are also experiencing the same wrath of God at this time.


Rex Ray said...

Tom Ross,

You said, “An understanding of the contextual timeframe of Genesis 12:1 as to whether God’s promise for “Abraham to go to a land/earth, that He will show him,” was a near or distant future outcome. It is my view that the promise in the Abrahamic Covenant was a distant future event when God will reveal to Abraham and his descendants a righteous Earth to inherit after the end of the age of the ages.”

Who is Abraham’s descendants? Paul gives the answer:

“The Jewish ceremony of circumcision has value only if you obey God’s law. But if you don’t obey God’s law, you are no better off than an uncircumcised Gentile. And if the Gentiles obey God’s law, won’t God declare them to be his own people?” (Romans 2:25-26 NLT)

“Being a Jew is worth something if you obey God’s laws; but if you don’t, then you are no better off than the heathen. And if the heathen obey God’s laws, won’t God give the all the rights and honors he planned to give the Jews?” (Romans 2:25-26 Living)

Long story short; any Jew that rejects Jesus will miss heaven.

Christiane said...

"The worst form of slavery is that which is called Caesarism, or the choice of some bold or brilliant man as despot because he is suitable. For that means that men choose a representative, not because he represents them, but because he does not."
(GK Chesterton)

“I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—
“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
(P.B.Shelley, 'Oxymandias')

'sic transit gloria mundi'
"O quam cito transit gloria mundi" ("How quickly the glory of the world passes away").

Christiane said...

"Democracy is not philanthropy;
it is not even altruism or social reform.

Democracy is not founded on pity for the common man;
democracy is founded on reverence for the common man, or, if you will, even on fear of him.
It does not champion man because man is so miserable, but because man is so sublime."

(GK Chesterton)

Anonymous said...

" Bob, sadly, if you can show me one right that you have, then I have the right to make you President of the USA even though I am not a citizen of your country simply because you have demonstrated that I have a right no matter what that right is."

Tom Ross, that could be right. :)

It's always a matter of perspective, isn't it? Ken

"If our fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the principle that a majority had the right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them.

Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally — perhaps more than equally, because more boldly — rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of the majority, than of a minority.

A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.
p. 7

Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice. And all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity.
p. 8

The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that—however bloody—can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave."

Christiane said...

Good Morning, REX RAY

I found this and thought, since LBJ is mentioned therein, that you might love to read this:

I also noticed your comment, this: "Long story short; any Jew that rejects Jesus will miss heaven." And I thought I might suggest that we let God be God in the realm of just who makes it into heaven . . . . only the Good Lord can see into the hearts of men and judge them with both mercy and justice. We do know that all salvation is made possible through Christ, the Salvation of us all, but just how He goes about doing that is not entirely something within our present understanding. So, for the souls of all in this world, I would think it is okay to put them into God's keeping with these words:
'Jesus Christ, I trust in You' and 'Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us'
Rex, it is a good thing to trust that the Good Lord alone is worthy to judge the souls of men, where eternity is concerned, and that His mercy is real. It is not without meaning that Jesus Christ is also called 'The Mercy of God'

Alaskan in Texas said...

Brother Wade: You wrote, "I first wrote about Riencourt's work when a political liberal served as President during 2008-2016." Will you provide a link to that earlier writing of yours? Thanks.

Victorious said...

Just thought I'd mention that I've tried several times in the past two days to do a search and this message popped up:

The information you have entered on this page will be sent over an insecure connection and could be read by a third party.

Are you sure you want to send this information?

That has not happened in the past.

everette said...

Wade, I don't understand your premise. Your second sentence states that Americans have been losing their rights for the last century.

But it wasn't until the beginning of the past century that all American women have had the right to vote. And they continued to be seen as legally inferior persons for decades later--it was a hard fight for women to earn the right to own property apart from their husbands, serve on juries, to sue when they are denied employment on the basis of sex, etc. And women have to continue to fight for the other ways, small and large, in which both society and the law deems them second class citizens.

Similarly, African Americans continued to face Jim Crow well into the 1970s (it took that long for decisions such as Brown v Board of Education to be enforced all over the South). They continue to struggle with the historical effects of policies such as redlining, legacy college admissions, police brutality, unequal treatment by the courts, etc. And their access to the ballot box is currently being rolled back in the South thanks to the repeal of the Voting Rights Act by the conservative courts.

Other racial and ethnic minorities have similar stories to tell.

And to which liberties to you refer? It can't be taxation or big government, because US top income tax rates have declined from 90% in the 1950s to 35% now. It can't be guns, because US gun laws are as lax as they have ever been (yes, some places like New York ban handguns, but they also banned them at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed by a large majority of the New York legislature).

So to which liberties do you refer?

It's a shame, because your article in general is an excellent summation of how republics become democracies, and of how demagogues who appeal to the base interests of the poorest and least-educated part of their population can undermine even well-established democracies (as we can see with our president's naked and continual appeals to white nationalist fantasies).

Tom said...

Sorry Rex, you missed the point I was making all together. Why, might I ask did you do that? With respect to the Genesis 12:1-3 outline of the beginning of the receiving of the Abrahamic covenant over the time up to and until Jacob goes down to Egypt, the promise of the whole earth that God would show them being an inheritance of Abraham and his descendants as any discussion on who Abraham's descendants will be in the distant future is really irrelevant to the point that I was making. Your response, however, confirms my point of the misunderstanding that is so prevalent with respect to the Word of God because of our flawed contextual understandings.

Christiane, your advice to Rex, if heeded, is well worth considering, because it is so easy to begin playing God in our judging of who and who is not righteous. That is best left up to God.

The confirmation solemn covenant to Abraham, Genesis 15, that he would in the distant future inherit the whole earth, God fulfilled when He brought them back into the Land of Canaan from Egypt, and the duration of Israel's dominion over the "Promised Land" or parts there of continued for around 1400 or so years until Judah was also scattered and sold into slavery. A time that was out of mind to Abraham when first told of this promise.

Why were they scattered? Because of their continual idolatrous worship of idols during the first two ages of their existence. How long would it take God to hear their cries as they struggled to find their way to Mt Zion? Another two ages, after which time all of Israel will be saved when the judgement of the kings of the earth at Armageddon is concluded. This will happen unexpectedly like a thief in the night when he breaks in.

Ezekiel 34:11-16 tells us that God will plant Israel in Good soil, i.e. the parable of the Sower, on which Israel can draw good sustenance, as He teaches them about the Mountains, i.e. the religion, of Israel, wherever they are living in their dwelling places all around the earth.

Today the church has many idols that we collectively need to repent of our flawed scholarship which is just one idol that many believe in.

Your king had encouragement from the appointed king of my country to go out and fight to heal the land of Babylon. The time of judgement of the respective kings of our lands will be soon in our near future. May we all repent of our respective sins before that time comes.


Anonymous said...

everette - do a simple search on 'American loss of liberties/rights' and you'll have enough to read for a lifetime. Take the Bill of Rights and go down each one and research.

last sentence from the above link: "... how the Obama administration weaponized the IRS, the FEC, FBI, and DOJ to target the First Amendment rights of Americans."

Been going on since the 1860's.


Rex Ray said...

Tom Ross,

Since the parting words of Jews is “Shalom”, I think you’re a Jew. Do you believe there are two kinds of Jews; saved Jews and lost Jews?

I noticed you quoted ONLY the OLD Testament; do you believe the New Testament?

“He came into the very world he created, but the world didn’t recognize him. He came to his own people, and even they rejected him. But all who believed in him and accepted him, he gave the right to become the children of God.” (John 1:10-12 NLT)

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the MANY who chose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a FEW ever find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14 NLT)

Do you believe? “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NLT)

Tom, I’ve asked three questions. I pray you’ll answer.

everette said...

Ken, that's true, but it's not evidence of a worsening trend. Whatever Obama or Trump may have done, it's not as bad as the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams, the genocide of Native Americans under Jackson, the suspension of habeas corpus under Lincoln, or the internment of innocent Americans under Roosevelt.

Tom said...


Whatever my beliefs are with respect to my faith, my comments do not call for you to be condescending towards WHO I AM BECUASE OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. What I was doing was presenting the facts that the contextual understanding of the scriptures within the various churches has been flawed for many years and has caused an affront to God's words and prophecies.

If you want me to only use the NT section of the Bible, then I will only have part of the whole story.

The Parable of the Judgement of the Nations Matt 25:31-46 is patterned on the requirements of Isaiah 58:6ff to be a recognised saint, where God promises that He will heal them, i.e. Israel: -

Isaiah 58:8-9: -
Then your light shall break forth like the morning,
Your healing shall spring forth speedily,
And your righteousness shall go before you;
The glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.
Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer;
You shall cry, and He will say, 'Here I am.'

The same is true whether you are a Gentile or Israelite Saint. When we earnestly call out to the Lord we will be healed and made whole again.

In my case, how I am saved is between God and myself.

I do not ask people about if they have been "saved," whatever that means, or if they have had an epiphany experience during their individual encounter experience. That tends to lead to comparisons being made by the inquirer.

What I ask them is: - "What is your relationship like with the God that you are worshiping at this present time?” And then maybe, “What is your sense of the significance of that relationship with the God that you worship?"

Jesus drew a lot of material from the OT when He told the people Parables. For example, the Prodigal Son can also be found told in Hosea.

The parable of the man who had planted a vineyard and given it to tenants is also drawn from the OT.

Let me give you a flawed NT understanding of the Greek word Seismos which is found 14 times in the NT and in all but one case it has been translated as “earthquake”, but the one exception is where it is talking about the turmoil in the sea because of the unpredictable waves swamping the boat. It is impossible to have an earthquake in water.

However, if we substitute the meaning of “turmoil” for this Greek word, the 14 passages begin to make more sense. In Matthew when the angel came down from heaven to roll away the stone, there was great turmoil and fear in the guard at the tomb. There was no great earthquake on the Sunday.

In my first comment, I said that the flawed understanding of the Biblical prophecies by the “Christians” has led to poor middle eastern foreign policies which have not served the USA and for that matter, my country, well.

We as Christian countries are suffering for our flawed understanding and choices with respect to God’s prophetic words.


Christiane said...

In the present time, it might be good to EXAMINE some classic definitions of 'democracy', as the term is now seen in different lights for purposes we cannot fathom:

Here's one insight about the term DEMOCRACY:

"G.K. Chesterton on Democracy
“…the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves–the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state. This is democracy; and in this I have always believed.”

— G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, chapter 4

Anonymous said...

"Ken, that's true, but it's not evidence of a worsening trend."

Do any research on how the bill of rights is being ignored? I'm well aware of the multitudes of atrocities done in the past (we just watched "Woman Walks Ahead" last night), but they haven't necessarily encroached on the individual's liberties as more recent events have.

I'm a third generation entrepreneur and the freedom of movement in just a business realm has tremendously diminished since the depression era when my late grandfather was in operation. (BTW,I've never met someone who hasn't agreed.)

NO driver's license/car registration, no business license, no permit to open carry/conceal carry, no DOT physical/card/numbers to operate a truck and trailer, no building permits to build or add on to a house back then. BUT THINGS SLOWLY STARTED compliance is consent.

Even in the 1970's my grandad and my dad used to stuff a Ford 8n tractor in the bed of a half ton chevy pickup with rear coil springs and drive it all over the county without incident (needed to come-along the bedsides back to make the tailgate fit). Today, I'd be fined out the wazoo for attempting such a "reckless" feat. I routinely meet folks that show me a DOT citation 6' long (no joke) that amounts to thousands of dollars in fines for idiotic infractions like not having valve stem caps on your tires, etc.

The part that really confuses me is when an illegal in these parts is caught driving an 80,000 pound dump truck without all the state issued ID's and licenses, they usually get off the hook in court thanks to our liberal state's policies.

Dealt with my state (ranks in the top three for most difficult to obtain) in regards to getting a conceal carry permit two years ago. Got one, but was eye opening in regards to the fact that the state has become my master, not my servant. Very scary.

I could go into more avenues of loss of liberties in private and public sector, but that would rob you the joy of research. :) Hint: go to Youtube and search under first or second amendment audit and see how local/state/federal jurisdictions respond to people with cameras and legally toted firearms. Quite a different response overall than just forty years ago.

Over and out, Ken

Christiane said...

I have no problem with regulations that are intended to protect the public. Unfortunately, greed has blinded some formerly very responsible entities who have pushed production forward too quickly without proper testing and the results can be deadly. If the word is out that 'regulations' can be ignored or got around in order to increase profits because regulators are chosen to 'get rid of' impediments to business profits, then more and more situations will arise where innocent people are poisoned, or injured, or killed because needed inspections and needed safety procedures were not implemented.

Maybe the board members of great corporations make decisions based on bean-counters' suggestions to 'cut costs' in order to increase profits, but there has usually until now been some back-up politically of responsible citizens working to set up inspections and to provide reasonable accountability that helps keep the public protected. I understand that is changing. I understand corners are being cut and politically-appointed regulators are not serving the public interests in the old ways, but are now serving corporation interests.

We are beginning to experience some fairly dramatic examples of the failure to hold entities accountable for basic safety standards. There's a saying, 'freedom requires responsibility'. Better to take care up front than to have to clean up disasters and bury the dead. Corporate greed in capitalism is not good for capitalism, no. So if there is an understanding that 'capitalism' is best for our country, we'd better darn well be sure it's responsible capitalism. If corporate entities are not voluntarily and honorably doing what is right by the public good, then some intervention from elected officials needs to be forthcoming among a free people for the prevention of harm to the public.

Rex Ray said...

Tom Ross,

I thought my three questions deserved a simple answer like yes or no, but like a politician, you answered with a ton of words around the questions without answering the question.

I’ll add a forth question: Are you a Jew?

I’ll ask again:

1.Do you believe there are two kinds of Jews; saved Jews and lost Jews?

2.Do you believe the New Testament?

3.Do you believe John 3:16?

You said, “We as Christian countries…”

Yes, you live in a Christian country. I wish you had said, ‘We as Christians…’ but you didn’t say that.

You said, “I do not ask people about if they have been “saved” whatever that means.”

If you were saved, you’d know what that means.

If you ask Jesus to save you, he’s never turned anyone down.

everette said...


I'm sure that by "Illegal" you mean someone like the President, a wealthy man who employs undocumented immigrants to become even richer, and not someone who is fleeing violence in Central America in order to seek a better life in the US. After all, the former offense is a felony punishable by jail time; crossing the US border without a visa is a civil offense whose maximum fine is $50.

As for freedom, how precisely does the tyranny of having to get a drivers' license or a building permit compare to what African-Americans experienced in the 19th century, when a white man like Thomas Jefferson could rape any black woman that he liked without penalty, and any African American parent, husband, or child who objected faced whipping or hanging? Or what about Native Americans, who could be packed up and shipped 1000 miles away, or put in a concentration camp, or killed, any time a white family decided that they needed more land?

That's what I mean by "expanding liberty."


Tom said...

Rex you wrote: -

I thought my three questions deserved a simple answer like yes or no, but like a politician, you answered with a ton of words around the questions without answering the question.

Rex, the reason I did not answer your questions was because you did not respond to or comment on what I had written with respect to my observation as to why the USA and other countries are falling apart at the moment. Your comments were about the personhood of myself, and not on the content of what I had written. As such your question were basically off topic with resect to what Wade had written.

I’ll add a forth question: Are you a Jew? Grafted, as I understand it.

I’ll ask again:

1.Do you believe there are two kinds of Jews; saved Jews and lost Jews? Just as I believe there are two kinds of “Christians,” both saved and lost/rejected.

2.Do you believe the New Testament? Just as much as I believe the Old Testament, which I believe you also believe in. Sadly, in both Translated Testaments there are many flawed theological concepts and interpretations put there by the Translators.

3.Do you believe John 3:16? Did not Jesus also say that to bring in the Kingdom of God, that we were, “To believe in Him Whom He has sent.”

You said, “We as Christian countries…”

Yes, you live in a Christian country. I wish you had said, ‘We as Christians…’ but you didn’t say that.

The above has no relevance within the context of the subject matter or what I had written.

You said, “I do not ask people about if they have been “saved” whatever that means.”

If you were saved, you’d know what that means.

Being saved can be understood many ways by different people. Sadly, because of many Christians’ aggressive harassment of Israelites, many have rejected what the “Christians” present with respect to Matthew 13:52.

If you ask Jesus to save you, he’s never turned anyone down. But the consequences of asking that question from a Hellenistic perspective has very severe consequents.


Christiane said...

If we are a 'Christian country', as some have said, I suspect they are relying on the assumption that we honor Judeo-Christian ethics as a country. But there are two kinds of meanings to the 'Christian' these days: and only one kind reflects those of good will who follow Our Lord. The other kind of 'christian' is an individual who is actively involved in forms of racism and/or Islamophobia and/or anti-Semitism and/or misogyny and/or homophobia.

Unfortunately, when someone today in our country says they are 'Christian', most people do not assume that these persons ARE the kind who reflect good will and follow Our Lord.

Instead, on hearing a person say they are 'Christian', people may assume the worst about them. Such has the 'witness' to the faith of Christ suffered in our country. I hope this changes soon, but right now people who ARE of good will need to rise up and reclaim the meaning of the word 'Christian' to reflect Christ Himself. There are many, many people of good will, but they have allowed the wrong sort to use the term 'Christian' and re-define its meaning, and this has hurt the witness of the whole Church.

Rex Ray said...

Tom Ross,

It’s hard to have a intelligent conversation with someone that doesn’t seem to have yes or no in their vocabular. Also, in the ‘rules of Wade’s blog’, anything a person writes may be replied to by anyone else.

That’s what I did in replying to you writing: ““An understanding of the contextual timeframe of Genesis 12:1 as to whether God’s promise for “Abraham to go to a land/earth, that He will show him,” was a near or distant future outcome. It is my view that the promise in the Abrahamic Covenant was a distant future event when God will reveal to Abraham and his descendants a righteous Earth to inherit after the end of the age of the ages.”

You wrote: “The reason I did not answer your questions…your questions were basically off topic with respect to what Wade had written.”

I had already replied to Wade in my comments on March 23, 6:43 PM and March 24, 4:29 AM, and as I said before, anything someone writes may be replied to.

“Are you a Jew?” You answered, “Grafted, as I understand it.
How do I know what you understand?

1.“Do you believe there are two kinds of Jews, saved Jews and lost Jews?” You answered, “Just as I believe there are two kinds of “Christians”, both saved and lost/rejected.”

Then you must believe John 3:16 says “…should be saved.” Baptist believe, “Once saved, always saved” and believes the verse says, “…will/shall be saved.”

2.“Do you believe the New Testament?” I agree with your answer and will add the writers themselves were WRONG at times such as the reason Moses gave for not being permitted to enter the Promise Land vs. God’s reason:

“And the Lord was even angry with me because of them and said to me, ‘You shall not enter the Promised Land.” (Deuteronomy 1:37, 3:26, 4:21 Living)

“The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, because you did not believe me and did not sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel, you shall not bring them into the land I have promised them.” (Numbers 20:12, 24, 27:14 Living)

Tom, do you not want to ask Jesus to save you because “…has very severe consequents.”

I can’t think of anything worse than going to hell.

Anonymous said...


You're point about expanding liberties applying to certain classes of people is true to a certain extent, however, you seem to be bent on ignoring the fact that for the majority of US citizens - liberties are rapidly disappearing (yet, ironically increasing for illegals).

Also, it seems you've ignored the rest of the "loss of liberty" pie when you use my slice (examples in business from the past century) and compare them with your examples of rape and atrocities done to African and Indigenous Americans (a minority of Americans...btw, my maternal grandmother was full blooded Native American). If you did your research you'd find that approx. 60 million unborn children have lost the right to life since 1973. Many more morally despicable examples avail.

At some point it seems you'd have to admit that, overall, liberties are decreasing. As uses of coercion, fines, and threat of violence (cage time) increase, liberties naturally decrease. We may not have Redcoats in our town squares and living rooms, but speeding cameras on street intersections and NSA's ability to listen to conversation via computers/TV's/smartphones/appliances are losses of liberties.

The sheer number of laws on the books at the local/state/federal level are overwhelmingly at an all-time high. Many of these laws at a federal level can be/are twisted to put any one of us in jail for life. Local and state courts are full of judges that collude with law enforcement and fine the heck out of the poor and middle class.

Does that help? ken

Anonymous said...

does this help?

Tom said...

Rex, I feel sorry for you. You have made a number of assumptions about who I am and questioned the state of my salvation. In other words, you have made this interaction personal and your desire is to save me. Now if I give you the "acceptable answers" from your perspective, would I then be saved?

What I have presented is that the "Church" has accepted/adopted many flawed understandings over a number of centuries, and those flawed traditional understandings have been used by people to influence the foreign policies of their respective countries. I also provided examples of how the contextually flawed understanding have arisen and the consequences of using those flawed understanding is having now on our respective countries, based on scripture. The outcomes are not tied to who is the leader of the "wolf" pack but are linked to the prophetic outcomes as found in the scriptures.

Wades has presented a historical pattern which can also be seen occurring today. The demonic beastly influences that caused Rome to fall are the same demonic beastly influences that are causing the present “worldly power brokers” to rise and also fall. The past dominate power brokers are crumbling away today. The reformation influence and their need to demonise the RCC, which became strongest in America many years later, has obscured our contextual understanding of what is occurring now in the world.

However, trying to bring some clarity as to what is occurring today within the church, has to overcome the entrenched traditions of our past.

Rex, irrespective of what my salvation status is, are my observations, as to why we have come to this present situation, based on scriptural prophecy. If they are not, then please present your understanding and to why it does not line up with the scriptures.

I await your response.


Rex Ray said...

Tom Ross,

Should I be comforted because you feel sorry for me? Well, I feel sorry for you that you said, “I do not ask people if they have been “saved”, whatever that means…”

“Saved” means having a ‘conversion experience with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus explained why he had to ‘go away’ so the Holy Spirit would come:

“When the Holy Spirit comes, He shall guide you into all truth, for He will not be presenting his own ideas, but will be passing on to you what He has heard.” (John 16:13 Living)

“And when He has come, He will convince the world of its sin, and the availability of God’s goodness, and of deliverance from judgment. The world’s sin is unbelief in me.” (John 16:8-9 Living)

“Being saved” can happen in a heartbeat. These are the words of a dying soldier who was in my father’s arms.

“Yesterday, I thought I would be killed and I asked Jesus to save me. He stepped into my heart. I was so happy I’d thought I’d live forever. I don’t know why I was hit today, but tell my mother, I’ll meet her in heaven.”

Anonymous said...

Re Roosevelt and the internment of innocent Americans:

We were given to understand, by some who had been interned and chose to stay in our state after being released, that before the internment camps many were sending money to Japan to help the war effort. (Not just to help the folks back in Japan survive, but to actively aid the war effort.)

If they were correct what should have been American action?

Anonymous said...

we harbor Russian sympathizers

Tom said...



But are you prepared to answer these questions honestly?

Do you agree with me that God's promise to Abraham and his descendants within the Abrahamic covenant, was that they would inherit the whole earth that He would reveal to them and that this is a distant future event, even now?

Do you agree that God in a solemn covenant listed an area of land, that Abraham's descendant would be given this area of land for a defined period of time, as a sign that God's promise of inheriting the earth would happen in the distant future?

Do you agree that God promised to gather Israel to himself at a future time and will plant them in fertile soil on which they can draw sustenance from Him after He has gathered them to himself and taught them about the "Mountains of Israel" and that He will make like new again the Kingdom of Priest and a Holy Nation and His Possession among the nations Covenant and that this will happen in our near future?

Do you agree that God requires Israel to be scattered throughout all the nation that live on the earth so that they can be a blessing to all of the nations on/of the earth?

Do you agree that Jesus told the Parable about two sons and asked his sons to go out to work in the harvest fields to bring in the increase, and the although the first son initially refused to do so, he went as His Father had asked him to, while the other son even though he had agreed to go, when the time came, did not go out into the harvest? Is this a parable about the Gentile and Israelite assemblies, i.e. church?

Do you agree that Jesus told several parables about Israel and that He had said that they would not have the means to build a temple in which to worship God, and that they would look foolish to all of the other nations of the earth because they will not be able to finish the task?

Do you agree that when Satan goes away that Israel sends a delegation after Him saying that they no longer want Satan to rule over them?

Do you agree that when they see THEIR MESSIAH, dealing and judging the nation surrounding them that they will seek His terms of Peace?

Do you have an understanding of God's prophetic promises that line up with His intents?

Answering these questions correctly is important with respect to our future destination?

If we do not know how to respond correctly, we will only get in the road and oppose God's purposes for what He wants for the peoples of the earth now, and in the near and also distant future. We will become Satan's Good and Faithful servants?


everette said...

Re: Roosevelt

It is a crime to aid and abet an enemy of the United States during war time. If it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a given person (regardless of their ancestry) had committed such a crime, then they could and should have been prosecuted through the US legal system. But the US constitution does not permit the government to imprison people without charge for years at a time merely because of their ancestry.

Ken, you refer to "the majority of US citizens." In my arguments, I pointed out that liberties have undeniably improved over the last century for American women and for Americans of color. Women constitute a majority of the US population. Of the remaining 48% of Americans who are men, roughly 60% are non-Hispanic white people. 60% of 48% is about 29%. Even if things really have gotten worse for white men in the US, that's only a small minority--less than 3/10--of Americans as a whole.

But as for liberties, well, sure--there are some laws that infringe on everyone's liberty. It's ridiculous to see busybodies measuring the height of grass to see if someone has violated the lawn code by 1/4 of an inch. In Louisiana, florists have to be licensed, and many other states require this of barbers, taxi drivers, and other such occupations. This is absurd.

But a lot of "liberties" are debatable. I'm glad, for example, that smoking is no longer allowed in restaurants, airplanes, and other public places. I hated the stench of second-hand smoke as a kid, and I am glad that my kids don't have to be exposed to it. Yes, the smokers complain about their rights--but I feel like I should have a right not to be exposed to the dangerous side-effects of their dirty habit. Similarly, I'm glad for seat-belt laws, helmet laws, drunk-driving laws, etc. These laws have massively improved road safety in the US. I'm glad that my taxes don't have to pay for nearly as many EMS responses to fatal and severe-injury car accidents as they once did.

I'm an American, but I currently live in a country where traffic laws are rarely enforced. Most people don't have licenses or any formal driver training, and there is no enforcement of height, weight, or driver fatigue rules for trucks. As a result, driving is quite stressful--motorcycles can be three deep on either side of you in the large cities. Large trucks will block up the two-lane national highways by driving literally 5 miles per hour up hills, because the are so overloaded that their engines can't push any harder.

Every time I make the 400-mile drive to the capital, I see at least a dozen trucks which have driven off the road, often with fatal consequences. Another dozen or two will be broken down on the side of the roads. Their drivers don't have daily driving limits, so they are often either exhausted, on amphetamines, or both, while driving their 25-foot-high trailers with a missing tire or two.

It's so much safer to drive in the US, where it is rare to see even a single truck accident over the course of a long road trip, much less a dozen, because of the strict safety laws under which our trucks and truckers operate.

Similarly, I hate that prescription drugs are allowed to be advertised on TV in the US, unlike almost every other Western country. I would love to introduce my young son to the joys of watching baseball games on TV when I go back to the US, but I don't want to have to teach a 5-year old what Cialis is. But hey, at least the drug companies have "liberty".

everette said...

But I've taken the conversation off-topic. Back to the matter at hand:

Caesar's rise to power, it had nothing to do with petty laws of the sort that Ken described or even with a general loss of personal liberties as described by Wade. Rather, it resulted from the oppression of the poor by the _Optimates_, the conservative party of the Roman Republic. Caesar was a member of the _Populares_, the progressive party. Unfortunately for the Populares, the Senate and the Consuls were elected by the wealthiest Romans. Poorer Romans only got to vote for lower-level officers. So the Roman government generally favored wealthy rural landowners at the expense of the urban poor of Italy.

Eventually the poor got tired of this, and so when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, they enthusiastically supported him and chased the Senate out of Italy before Caesar's army could even get to Rome. Caesar eventually defeated the Senatorial army in Greece a year and a half after he first crossed the Rubicon. As dictator, Caesar reformed the Roman government to allow more representatives of the poor to hold office.

But he went too far. He soon started to conflate loyalty to the people of Rome with loyalty to Julius Caesar, and eventually he created enough enemies that he was assassinated only 2.5 years after he won the Civil War. But people didn't trust the Optimates with power, so eventually they turned to Julius Caesar's great-nephew Augustus. And the rest is history.

Christiane said...

I believe that the actual 'citizens' of Rome, when it WAS a republic, were very much in the minority.

Yet out of Greece and Rome came the ideas of democracy in the Western tradition. So the Romans came to Great Britain and stayed for four hundred years, and then the inhabitants of Britain formed kingdoms until the Vikings raided and the Danelaw carved out a vast portion of Britain for the Danish rulers. In time the Normans invaded and the Norman lords took over the rule of Britain. In 1215, the barons of Britain forced King John to sign the 'Magna Carta' which led to the formation of 'Parliament' and the beginnings of the limits of the king's power and the set laws that established a standard of rights of the people.

I'd say that we can trace our democracy back to the Romans and before them, the Greeks, as an 'idea' beginning to take form, but the 'idea' found a greater home among the British who by the year 1215, were an amalgam of the original British, Norse invaders, and Normandy invaders from France. The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 by King John establishes a new kind of government with a parliament.

Truth be told, the Norse actually did have a kind of 'civil' government of laws if you examine the 'law-speakers' of Iceland, the country with the oldest active Parliament in the world today, which was founded in the 900's, predating Britain's formation of a parliamentary system by hundreds of years.

Maybe it isn't so much the 'Romans' or the 'Greeks' that came up with the idea of republics and democracies. Maybe the seeds of self-government are more deeply a part of our DNA, when people of conscience and honor wish to live in a system of laws and have some control over their lives . . . . so that there is no conflict between their freedom and their civic responsibilities. I think it is in the human spirit to want to seek self-determination in so far as is possible within community, and this is an expression of a real 'need' within the human spirit that did NOT begin with any historical culture, but is more tied to 'who we are' as human persons.

Jon L. Estes said...

//This is why followers of Jesus should never place allegiance to a politician above reverence to the Creator of all things. //

This is 100% correct. It also needs to be said that followers of Christ ought to do all they can to support the USA, politically, that who they vote from among those running will harm the country the least.

I know this is based on limited knowledge of where either candidate will lead us but I have not seen any Cesearism (or at least no more than any previous Presidents in my adult lifetime).

There is much I disagree completely with the current President but I think of where the other candidate would be leading us... I believe closer to Caesarism than the current.

The great thing here is - having different opinions on this doesn't cure anything...another reason to trust the One who will see us through.

Rex Ray said...

Tom Ross,

Your “Do you agree” is answered by Jesus’s parable of a king having a great wedding feast for his son.

All brackets [ ] are added by me.

“…a king [God] prepared a wedding feast for his son [Jesus]…sent his servants [God’s messengers] to notify those [Jews] who were invited. But they all refused to come. So he sent other servants to tell them…Others seized his messengers…and killed them.” (Matthew 22:2-6 NLT)

“Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers!...” (Matthew 23:37 NLT)

“ The king [God] was furious…the guest [Jews] I invited aren’t worthy of honor. Now go to the street corners and invite everyone [Gentiles] you see…the banquet hall was filled with guest.” (Matthew 22: 7-10 NLT)

Anonymous said...

"But a lot of "liberties" are debatable"

Very true! There are a large number of folks who think women gaining voting status is similar to women gaining the ability to own slaves. Both would be seen as despicably immoral.

"On November 4th, do not hesitate. Utilize the secret ballot polling booth in order to vote in favor of stealing more of your neighbor’s property, to keep your children in public indoctrination centers, to give your elderly parents a raise in their Socialist Insecurity, and to give yourself greater access to health care. Vote against issues that might allow people to exercise their inalienable rights as they wish, to spend their property in the manner they find befitting, to prevent smoking or drinking in any restaurants, to provide more handicapped parking spaces everywhere. Vote for the candidates that promise (lie?) to remake the world through legislation, in the image in your mind. Christians have again been duped by Satan, not only into willing participation, but into the defense of such action, in spite of what they know in their souls of evil."

taken from

"“In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."

taken from

Also, we had to watch Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live" series in High School many moons ago in which he covered how internal moral degradation found its way into all aspects of the Roman culture and ultimately led to its demise. Have you ever watched it? Ken

Anonymous said...

Sorry, forgot to direct that last post to Everette. Ken

everette said...

I disagree that taxation is theft--being American is a high privilege for which I am happy to pay for. I don't mind paying for other people's health care--on the contrary, I think that life is sacred, from conception to senility. If the American system actually provided better health outcomes, I would happily support it--but it has proved to be expensive (the US spends about twice as much as its GDP on health care as any other Western nation) and ineffective (the US life expectancy is actually shortening right now).

I really enjoyed living in France and participating in its health care system--it required far less paperwork and was far less expensive than ours does (I didn't get the subsidies that French people do, but the overall cost of care was much less).

The US also has by far the highest abortion rate in the Western world, in large part because it provides so little support to parents. The vast majority of American abortions are sought by poor people who already have other kids. They seek abortions because they don't think they can afford another mouth to feed.

For what it's worth, my own political leanings are generally in line with Catholic social teaching, even though I am a Protestant. I'm in favor of any policy that results in a lower abortion rate, abolishes the death penalty, and leads to a cleaner, safer environment. I'm opposed to unhelpful government regulation and in favor of helpful regulation. In some cases this aligns me with conservatives, and in others with liberals. I'm fine with that.

I saw How Shall We Then Live, but I disagree with Schaefer's conclusion. Edward Gibbon had the opposite view of Schaefer--Gibbon concluded that Christian influence on the Roman government caused it to spend too much on welfare and too little on defense, making it vulnerable to its enemies. I also disagree with Gibbon.

This is because both of them did not have access to some key information that modern historiography and archaeology have now revealed. Primarily, this is that the famous crisis of the 3rd century, which led to about 50 Roman Emperors in 50 years and 2/3 of the empire lost to barbarian invasion, was due largely to a plague that devastated the Empire every bit as much as the Black Plague devastated 14th century Europe. Rome gradually recovered, but the new government was much more autocratic than the previous system that Augustus had created. Instead, Rome became increasingly governed by wealthy landowners who mistreated the poor and did their best not to pay taxes.

At the same time, the Huns had invaded Eastern Europe, forcing the Eastern Europeans (Goths, Germans, and Vandals) to seek refuge in the Roman Empire. They were happy to become Romans--they quickly learned Latin, adopted Catholicism, etc. But, being refugees, they were desperate for employment, so when leading Roman politicians offered them jobs as private soldiers, they accepted. They then became pawns in the great Roman civil wars of the late 4th century, that ultimately weakened the Western Roman empire so much that it could not resist the Gothic and Hunnic invasions of the 5th century.

None of this had anything to do with welfare or with sexual mores; it had everything to do with rich and powerful people who manipulated the government to their own ends to its ultimate demise. I say this, because the Eastern empire had the same welfare system and the same sexual mores as the Western Empire did, but it survived for 1000 longer--because it was more centralized.

Christiane said...

"Christians have again been duped by Satan, not only into willing participation, but into the defense of such action, in spite of what they know in their souls of evil." "

"36 When He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless...." (Matt 9)
hundreds of immigrant families caged under the Paso Del Norte Bridge in El Paso, Texas because the border patrol station in El Paso is full.

Our Lord was a refugee from a murderous tyrant . . . St. Joseph was told to take Him and Mary into Egypt to escape Herod's soldiers

The way we treat refugees in this country these days could ONLY be inspired by Satan

Anonymous said...

Interesting info, Everette. Thanks for the reply! Ken

Tom said...


Thanks for your response. It has provided enough of an indication as to your understanding of the Abrahamic covenant and the Kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation and God's Possession Among the nations Covenant which will be renewed in our near future and your attitude towards Abraham's descendants.

No further discussion is required between us.


Rex Ray said...

Tom Ross,

It looks like you want to quit a ‘winner’ without any reply. That’s not the way Wade’s blog works. It seems you don’t understand that Abraham’s descendants went out the window as Jesus explained in his parable of the “wedding feast”.

I’ll just add the words of the revelation that Bob Cleveland made many years ago: “It’s the bit dog that hollers.”

Rex Ray said...


You said, “At some point in not-too-near future, America as we know it will collapse.”

I agree; not because of the reasons you listed, but because of the “Seven steps Nations commit suicide by former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm.

In the town of Grand Prairie Texas, there are two schools by the names of “North Grand Prairie High School” and “South Grand Prairie High School”. Many years ago, my children went to the school that was located in the south part of town.

I have a chip on my shoulder against Rev. Jessie Jackson (Black) because he instigated the removal of ‘South’s school’s flag that was Confederate.

This was brought out today by the TV “Outnumbered” where Rev. Jackson was in high gear.

Some time ago the Grand Jury indicted actor Jussie Smollett (Black and Gay) to stand trial for publishing “hate letters” he’d written to himself and hiring two BLACK guys to beat him up to further public-size his career. He told the police they were WHITE, but surveillance videos proved they were Black. After the two Blacks told police that Smollett paid them over $3,000 to beat him up, it was a slam-dunk that Smollett was guilty, but his trial was canceled by a Black Prosecutor, Kim Foxx, after Michell Obama’s lawyers talked to her.

Anonymous said...

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Sorry, couldn't resist posting this after I read it. Ken

Anonymous said...

Easy to play, which you can play on your phone.

สมัคร avenger98