http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=174125

As I write this, we’re heading into the July 4 weekend, 2010. And I don’t intend to refer to it that way again.

We’re heading toward Independence Day, and that’s what we’re supposed to be celebrating. July 4 is just another day, like July 5 or Oct. 17. What gives the Fourth of July its significance is that our Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1776.

It was in Philadelphia, and the signers of that document, composed by Thomas Jefferson, knew that this declaration of independence from the dictatorial rule of Great Britain might also be – literally – their death sentence.

They knew full well that the wrath and might of the British army would be sailing across the Atlantic to descend on the relatively defenseless colonies. They knew their scattered “states” didn’t have the numbers or arms or training to stand against the British, much less defeat them militarily. Yet they put their signatures – and their lives, their families, their destiny – on that parchment.

And so, against all odds, and even against reason, that Declaration told the world that “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” The only importance of the fourth day of July, then, is that it marks the birth of the United States of America.

Don’t just talk about your patriotism; display it with one of several flags offered in WorldNetDaily’s Superstore

Say it again. The United States of America. The very words should send awe-filled shivers up your spine, as they do mine. Until that day, that hour, there was no United States, no nation called America. And had it not been for the incredible bravery and vision of those ordinary-seeming men, there likely never would have been.

There had never been anything like it, and the very idea seemed impossible. But most of the people living in those colonies had simply had enough of British domination, of working and virtually existing at the pleasure of a king they didn’t know and who obviously considered them his indentured servants. They wanted to be free, to make their own decisions, to govern themselves and breathe the sweet air of liberty.

So they staked their very lives, on that fourth day of July 1776, on an outrageous gamble, an impossible dream of freedom. And in the next few days, they began to taste what being free might be like.

The first celebration of American independence took place four days later in Philadelphia, where the Continental Congress was still meeting. The ceremony began with a public reading of the Declaration of Independence. Then, from the tower of the State House, now called Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell rang out.

The coat of arms of the king of England was taken down. And there was a parade. And cannons boomed. The people, though aware of what lay ahead, cheered! A new nation sprang to life.

That’s what this day is meant to be about.

Not just another day off work. Not just a day to have a barbecue, or a steak grilled in the back yard or a family picnic in the park. Not just an excuse to set off loads of fireworks, though all those things are fine in themselves.

John Adams, himself a signer of the Declaration, thought that Americans should henceforth celebrate a “great anniversary festival.” In a letter to his wife, Abigail, he wrote, “It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.”

So it began. The first anniversary was celebrated in Philadelphia the following year. It included the pomp and parade, the guns, bells, bonfires … and plenty of speeches emphasizing the miracle that was under way. A more elaborate celebration was held there in 1788, after the new Constitution had been ratified. Then there was a much larger parade, speeches and a dinner. During the dinner many toasts were proposed, accompanied by fanfares of trumpets and cannons. Some of the toasts were to “the People of the United States,” “General Washington” and “The Whole Family of Mankind.”

But between those two celebrations, in 1776 and 1788, there was much horrible fighting, rivers of bloodshed, the deaths and bankruptcies of many of the signers of the Declaration, families torn apart and businesses and farms destroyed. The freedoms declared by the Declaration – and ushered into fact by the Constitution – were secured at a terrible cost.

(Column continues below)

Soon, across the growing nation, at sunrise on July 4, salutes were fired and bells were rung. Flags were flown from buildings, from homes and along the streets. Shop windows were decorated with red, white and blue. Churches held special services. There were parades followed by public readings of the Declaration of Independence. National songs were sung, marches were played, speeches were made … and fervent, grateful prayers were offered to God.

What’s Independence Day like today? Do most people you know actually make time to purposely celebrate our independence in meaningful ways? Do you? Even while we’re again locked in a deadly combat on foreign soil – still involving hundreds of thousands of our finest young men and women?

What are they fighting for now? Is it anything like what motivated our Revolutionary Army? Is it “freedom from religion,” the necessity to take “under God” out of our pledge, or even to do away with it altogether? Is it the “right” to end the lives of unwanted babies, or the “right” for two men or two women to “marry”?

Or is it still the impossible dream of a nation under God, with unalienable rights endowed equally to all – among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Surely this weekend is a time for all of us who really cherish that original dream, the one for which so many have died, to individually and collectively redeclare our independence from tyranny, despotism, taxation without representation and debts that no free society should ever bear. And allegiance to the blood-bought foundation of government of, by and for the people … people who are determined to live free.

PRAGMATISM AMONG CHARISMATICS AND INDEPENDENT BAPTISTS

(Friday Church News Notes, December 11, 2009, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

An anonymous writer in Australia has been critiquing Hillsong Church, the largest church in the country, in a series of blogs. In the latest one he says, “Nothing frustrates a church-building pastor more than conflict of purpose or multiple agenda amongst their church members. Where there is divergence of opinion, or lengthy debate over a proposed course of action, pro-active pastors get understandably impatient. … Pursuit of the vision is top priority, and so all other concerns are subordinated to the common drive to ‘build the church.’

… This seems reasonable; after all, why get caught up with minor issues and neglect the bigger picture? But this reasoning sets up a false choice. Why is it assumed that we must decide between either the big picture, or minor issues? … if we agree that there are at least ‘lesser concerns,’ why must these be ignored in favour of the bigger picture?

… Let us consider a hypothetical situation. Imagine an active church member who faithfully serves each weekend; someone who might be described as ‘committed to the house.’ After several weekends of questionable doctrine being preached, he decides to approach a pastor, to whom he outlines his concern: why does Brian [Houston, Hillsong’s senior pastor] teach one thing, when the Bible teaches quite the opposite? … the pastor makes it clear that Brian’s preaching is building the church, and that the man’s ‘theologizing’ only serves to distract from the bigger picture.

Perhaps, the pastor suggests, the man should decide whether he is ‘committed to the house,’ or should consider a different church.

… This is how the ‘unquestioning’ element of Hillsong’s culture is perpetuated. From a church-growth perspective, it’s very effective. People who disagree don’t last long enough to have their concerns properly heard and acted upon” (http://tttdiscussionforum.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default).

COMMENT BY BROTHER CLOUD: This same philosophy is rampant among independent Baptists. I saw it at Highland Park Baptist Church and Tennessee Temple in the 1970s, and it characterized Jack Hyles’ ministry. This is why the students at Hyles-Anderson and other places cannot criticize “the man of God” or the institution. (While I don’t believe in a critical spirit, I do believe in proving all things by God’s Word and I do not believe that any man or church is beyond this.) Nothing must get in the way of the “program” of building the church and winning souls. This is why so many IB pastors consider my ministry “divisive.” In their minds it gets in the way of the things are “truly important.” If they loved the whole Word of God, they would delight in the preaching of the whole Word of God, let the chips fall where they will (Psalm 119:128), but they are pragmatists. Paul taught Timothy to respect even the spots of doctrine and practice commanded in the Bible (1 Timothy 6:13-14).

http://wayoflife.org/files/5c878fbd2be474d83d917b2fe1c62a59-476.html

1 John 3:1

With the day after Thanksgiving past us, we are fully into the Christmas season. Although many places would much rather call it the holiday season. Many towns would rather remove traditional nativity scenes rather than risk offending someone. Many schools will no longer sing traditional Christmas songs that mention the name of Jesus Christ because they are afraid of offending someone. Listen to this news report from November 30, 2009:

The 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has upheld a school district’s ban on Christmas carols such as “Silent Night,” “Joy to the World,” “Oh, Come All Ye Faithful” and “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” – and approved “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and “Frosty the Snowman.” In the Nov. 24 ruling the Third Circuit approved the school policy banning all religious Christmas music, including instrumentals, which had been part of the South Orange–Maplewood School District’s Christmas program for years – until one parent complained. Attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued to reverse a lower-court ruling affirming the policy. The firm argued the district’s ban on religious music conveys a government-sponsored message of disapproval and hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. “Christmas is a national holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, not the birth of Frosty the Snowman or Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center. “This ruling is another example of how the courts have tyrannically twisted the Establishment Clause as a weapon against Christians in the War on Christmas.” The law firm says the school’s ban was specifically aimed at preventing Christmas music, including simple instrumentals without words, during holiday concerts. The district had allowed the performance of traditional Christmas music for more than 60 years but in 2004 suddenly banned it. The district’s decree ordered that only selections such as “Winter Wonderland” and “Frosty the Snowman” would be allowed, with a complete ban on tunes about Jesus and even Santa Claus. The high school’s brass ensemble had to rebuild its repertoire, the Martin Luther King Gospel Choir was ordered not to perform and printed programs were edited to remove any “graphics which refer to the holidays, such as Christmas trees.”

THE CLIMATE CHANGE MAFIA EXPOSED

(Friday Church News Notes, December 4, 2009, www.wayoflife.org; fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) –

The following is excerpted from “Climate Change: The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation,” by Christopher Booker, The Telegraph, Nov. 28, 2009: “A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term ‘Climategate’ to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times.

… The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports.

… his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely–not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

… The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite … There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious … is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

… The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction–to lower past temperatures and to ‘adjust’ recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

… The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods–not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.”

NEW PRESIDENT OF EUROPE SAYS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE A STEP TOWARD GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

(Friday Church News Notes, November 27, 2009, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -

Speaking at a press conference following his election as the first president of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy called 2009 “the first year of global governance.” He said this was true for two reasons, first, because of the establishment of the G20 due to the financial crisis, second, because of the climate conference in Copenhagen. He called the latter “another step toward global management of our planet” (“EU Presidency,” BBC News, Nov. 21, 2009). Rompuy is currently the Prime Minister of Belgium, but he will step down to assume the new position on January 1. The mythical “man-made global warming” crisis is one of the largest international power grabs in recent history, and it is another step toward the one-world government prophesied in Scripture. At the same time, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is restraining the “mystery of iniquity” until God’s plan for the church age is complete. The Devil is not in control. “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8).

AMERICA’S DECLINING AFFAIR WITH MARRIAGE

(Friday Church News Notes, November 13, 2009, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

– The following is excerpted from The Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2009: “The institution of marriage in the United States has steadily declined in strength over the past four decades, according to a report released last month by a panel of scholars and advocates. The U.S. Marriage Index, the brainchild of David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, seeks to quantify the health of marriage in the United States in the same way economists use leading indicators to parse the state of the country’s economy. …

The index combined five statistics–the percentage of adults between the ages of 20 and 54 who are married, the percentage of adults who reported being a ‘very happy’ with their marriages, the percentage of first marriages intact, the percentage of births to married parents and the percentage of children living with their own married parents–to reach a composite score illustrating the state of America’s nuptial unions. In 1970, that score totaled 76.2; by 2008 it had dropped to 60.3. Almost 90 percent of children were born to married parents in 1970; last year it was 60 percent. Of adults between ages 20 and 54, 78.6 percent were married in 1970, compared with 57.2 percent in 2008.

The portion of first marriages that remained intact dropped from 77.4 percent in 1970 to 61.2 percent last year. … Blankenhorn points to statistics showing that kids who grow up in homes where their parents are married to each other are, on average, less likely to live in poverty, to have emotional or behavioral problems, to engage in premature sexual activity, to use drugs or commit suicide. ‘Every single pathology or problem or difficulty a child can experience–every single one–growing up outside of a married-couple home elevates the risk,’ he says.”

By Dr David N Smeltz

Chaplain Vietnam Veterans of America State of Virginia

Missionary to Eastern Europe and Asia

Why would a person take the life of so many? What you will not hear on the media is the truth about the Moslem’s life and destiny.  When the Muslim is at odds with the world and his or her relationship is in conflict with  Allah, he must follow the Qur’an. Why did Major Hussan  attack his comrades? As you listen to the media you will hear the spin to blame what Major Hussan has done on (PTSD) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

If you will bear with me, as I would like to approach this from his religious belief. It is very clear he was living the Muslim life as he was the senior Muslim taking the place of the chaplain who led the fifty eight Muslims on base.  We know many veterans have taken their life due to the stress of war and stress of life.  

Tolerance is the key and what happens when you can no longer tolerate what you see and what you hear. The result is revolt or attack. The Qur’an teaches tolerance and peace. “109.1″:    Say: O unbelievers! “109.2″:    I do not serve that which you serve, “109.3″:    Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve: “109.4″:    Nor am I going to serve that which you serve, “109.5″:    Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve: “109.6″:    You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion. Those you cannot tolerate leave them as Allah will deal with them.

The Qur’an teaches believers to take up arms only in self-defense. Did Major Hussan feel he was defending what he believed?  Look at Qur’an 2:190-193  “2.190″:    And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. “2.191″:    And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. “2.192″:    But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. “2.193″:    And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Was Major Hussan defending his belief?  Was this act a act of Jihad. It is said he cried out Allah Akbar as he fired these hand guns at his comrades killing thirteen and wounding 28.  The Qur’an teaches there is nothing greater than a Jihad. This is a guarantee of going to paradise. “9.111″:    Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.

A reference to this would be Umm Nidal, the mother of Hamas suicide attacker Muhammad Farhat, saw her son’s murderous death in the same way-as a great victory: Jihad is a (religious) commandment imposed upon us she explained.” We must instill this idea in our sons’ souls all the time. What you see every day, massacres, destruction, bombing of homes strengthened, in the souls of the sons and daughters of Islam. Allah is to be praised for the Jihads. The act of Major Hussan was a Jihad’s act. It was his final call to Allah whereby he would be guaranteed paradise. That is why he cried out “Allah Akbar.”

What America needs to know is this religion which is being approached as tolerate and good is not tolerate and good. As this religion grows in this country we will see more acts as what we witnessed yesterday.  When one speaks up as I have here I might be called a hate monger but my friends the truth will set you free. America is under attack by a religious polity who has all intentions to destroy the American way. Beware, this is just the beginning.

WWW.drdavidsmeltz.org

10 BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT

(Friday Church News Notes, October 16, 2009, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – The following is adapted from a list that was sent to us recently.

1. Israel became a nation in 1312 BC, two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

3. Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for over three centuries, but it has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.

4. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Jewish Holy Scriptures, but it is not mentioned once in the Koran.

5. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

6. Arab refugees were intentionally not integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been integrated into their own people’s lands.

7. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

8. The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

9. The PLO’s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

10. Of the 690 United Nations General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel, but the UN was silent while the Jordanians destroyed 58 Jerusalem synagogues, systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

http://wayoflife.org/files/ce915fcf6165ca1b55fa918cea89c515-436.html

Sunstein: Fetuses ‘use’ women, abortion limits ‘troublesome’
Obama regulatory chief offers radical new interpretation of Constitution

JERUSALEM – Restrictions on access to abortion would turn women’s bodies into vessels to be “used” by fetuses, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“A restriction on access to abortion turns women’s reproductive capacities into something to be used by fetuses. … Legal and social control of women’s sexual and reproductive capacities has been a principal historical source of sexual inequality,” Sunstein wrote in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution.”

In the book, obtained and reviewed by WND, Sunstein sets forth a radical new interpretation of the Constitution. In one chapter, titled “Pornography, abortion, surrogacy,” Sunstein argued against restrictions on abortion and pornography.

“Restrictions on abortion, surrogacy and free availability of pornography are troublesome,” he wrote.

“I do not mean to oppose equality to liberty. … Liberty does not entail respect for all ‘choices,’” he maintained.

Sunstein’s views on fetuses are not limited to his 1993 book.

WND reported earlier this month that in a 2003 book review, Sunstein argued there is no moral concern regarding cloning human beings since human embryos, which develop into a baby, are “only a handful of cells.”

In addition to Sunstein’s moral disregard for human embryos, WND reported the Obama czar several times has quoted approvingly from an author who likened animals to slaves and argued an adult dog or a horse is more rational than a human infant and should, therefore, be granted similar rights.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110934

How long until Cass Sunstein would go after the terminally ill, incapacitated, or dead? Keep reading:

TEL AVIV – President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.

In his 2008 book, “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as “routine removal,” posits that “the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission.”

“Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend,” wrote Sunstein. “In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life.”

The problem is that Sunstein views people as nothing more than animals. Do I think people should be organ donors? Yes (I am one), but it should be their choice: not the state’s choice, or the federal government’s choice. What has happened over the last thirty years is the mindset that humanity is just part of a large machine. When a part (a human) breaks down, then another part is found to replace that part and the machine keeps going. All people have worth and are important in God’s eyes. Life is precious and humanity is not part of a large cosmic machine.

Gen 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  (27)  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mankind is to have dominion over the earth and all the creatures of the earth. We are to treat them properly and be good stewards over what God has given to us.