The Church Of Sodom

In the Bible, in the Old Testament, there is a specific list of charges brought against Sodom. That is, the Abrahamic era sister city to Gomorrah, both of which were destroyed by fire and brimstone. Before the potential opponents of this statement speak up, yes there is now scientific evidence; and no, we're not discussing that in this article.
The actual account in Genesis 19 of this city's visitation by two angels details the intent of the city's men to engage in rape and "unnatural relations." Verse 7 of Jude states clearly that they had given themselves over to sexual immorality. For some reason, while these two portions get major play when speaking of the sins of Sodom, the other list is repeatedly and (in this writer's opinion) criminally ignored. It is found in Ezekiel 16:49-50.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. [KJV]

For those of us so-called "heathens" that prefer a more modern and understandable language:

Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out as you have seen. [NLT]

The reason I bring this up will become clear in a moment. First, I want to point out that the order of words and items listed within Scripture is of the utmost importance. For instance, Proverbs 18:21 does not say "Life and death are in the power of the tongue" as is most often misquoted. Rather, it says "Death and life are in the power of the tongue." Humans, even those who follow wholeheartedly after the Christ, are more apt to speak evil (death) than blessing (life). Thus, death is addressed first with the warning that follows: "Those who love it will eat its fruit." The message of course being so clearly stated in the children's song: Be careful little mouth what you speak.

Second, I want to briefly turn our attention to the showdown taking place between our government and various church leaders within our Christian community.

The Dissenters 

Rodney Howard-Browne

For those of you wondering why the name Rodney Howard-Browne sounds so familiar, you need look no further than the so-called "Toronto Blessing."

I am more than a little familiar with the event. Some former pastors of mine bought into the move quite heavily, even diverting a portion of church giving to help fund "God's work" at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church. I can say that what started as a genuine move towards repentance became a circus of promises and pandering when Howard-Browne and protege Randy Clark took the wheel.

Rather than encourage the continued direction of repentance, fasting, and prayer, the two men moved to a different tact: They stated that God wanted to bless everyone. This is always welcome news to people who don't necessarily want to be reminded of their sin, but want to prosper in spite of it. And since blessing is always in response to giving, the promises/pandering cycle began. Basically, this consists of the promise ("God wants to bless you in a mighty way tonight!") followed by the totally uncoerced urge to give money ("God loves a cheerful giver and will bless you abundantly beyond what you could ever ask or think!")

You may also remember that Rodney Howard-Browne claimed that Hurricane Irma had no teeth, despite its causing 50 deaths and power outages for 5.5 million people. He has been a part of not one but two multi-level marketing schemes; and I use that particular word because the first defaulted on a $182 million dollar loan while being charged with fraud and infringement, among other things. The second has been the subject of class action lawsuits, allegations of tax fraud, and several questionable out of court settlements.

Repeatedly, this man has shown by word and deed a serious lack of discernment and wisdom. This holds true to the present, when on Monday, March 30, 2020, he was arrested for violating emergency federal, state and county orders banning large gatherings. These orders are a response to the novel (meaning no inherent or acquired immunity in humans) virus COVID-19, which is officially a pandemic (meaning it is infecting and killing people en masse around the globe.)

Rather than utilize his impressive social media platform, his highly visible websites, or any of his traditional media offerings (radio, television, etc), Howard-Browne urged people to physically attend services. During a pandemic. With a virus that can be spread through contact, coughing or sneezing. That's killing people within days of detection. Specifically, those who are elderly and those with compromised immune systems. Did I mention that his church is in Florida, where nearly a third of the population meets those criteria?

Tony Spell

Mark Anthony Spell; whom most know as Pastor Tony Spell of Life Tabernacle Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; is not as widely known as our first dissenter. He is a family man, and by all accounts a good husband and father. Many within his congregation have rallied behind their chosen spiritual leader with statements regarding his character. This, in my opinion, says a great deal more about him than whatever the nightly news might bring up.

However, even the best intentioned folk are prone to error. While I will not speak to Spell's character or person; I do not know him, and thus would otherwise be guilty of both gossiping and maligning him if I did; I will raise some questions and draw some conclusions.

Spell was charged with, though not arrested for, six misdemeanors on Tuesday, March 31, 2020. These charges are emergency powers specific: Violation of Governor's Order LA R.S. 29:724E. Local news affiliate WAFB cited attorney Hillar Moore just a few weeks earlier as saying, "Hopefully, there will be some alternatives this church can use to ‘congregate’ and pray through other means that comply with the restrictions. Summonses and prosecution will be the least favorable means to have well-intended people comply." Spell continued in calling for services, so those least favorable means were employed.

Where Lanes Merge

The Points Of Defense

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

Pastor Tony Spell leads an Apostolic Pentecostal church. Rodney Howard-Browne leads a Word-of-Faith church. Pastor Tony Spell has been hailed as a wonder-worker by some of his congregants. Rodney Howard-Browne has proclaimed himself "God's bartender." Pastor Tony Spell has loudly proclaimed his attendance numbers and intent to continue meeting. Rodney Howard-Browne has done the same.

These two men are quite different in their doctrinal beliefs. If Life Tabernacle Church holds to traditional Apostolic beliefs, they have significant theological differences as well. So what causes two men, from two different backgrounds and disciplines to do the same thing?

It could be said that they are being led by the Holy Spirit. Certainly there have been other points in history where the Spirit of God has led multiple people in concert with one another without their knowledge. No doubt that is what each man might claim. Certainly that is what some of their supporters have been saying already. If indeed it is the Holy Spirit, then nothing in their words and actions can/will contradict Scripture.

Naturally, the first passage that comes to mind is Hebrews 10:25, which says not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. This was said to followers of the Christ amidst intense persecution, and should always be read in its full context as well. The next thing that comes to mind are the words of Jesus Himself. In Matthew 22:21, He says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. This was specific to taxes, but it certainly applies to study, prayer, praise, and worship as well. Finally, there is Acts 5:29, in which Peter and the other apostles tell the Jewish leaders that they must obey God and not men. As they were answering officials demanding they cease preaching, this certainly applies! (For the record, accounts such as that found in Daniel 3, fall in lockstep with this account in Acts, and as such are not detailed here.)

The House Of Cards

Photo by Nicolette Attree from Pexels

Christians have developed a neat little double standard when it comes to obeying the Word of God, I'm afraid; not to mention laws of the land. When a law of God goes against our human nature and/or desires, we say we're under grace so the law does not apply. Yet when a law of man also interferes with our empire building; or genuine good intent; we default to saying we must honor the law of God above all else. Much of this prepackaged doctrine based solely upon a single statement by a man who later had to be set straight by the last inductee to the original apostles club (Paul.) Concerned? Confused?

Let me make two vital points, and I'll start with the easiest to digest first.

If the government were to outlaw Christianity, by all means we disobey. In this, it is not a matter of outlawing a religion, thereby forcing us to choose between God's law or man's. Rather in that situation, the government has outlawed a culture. A heritage. Literally, who we are as children of God. So it's not one law versus another; it's one law versus a people's very identity. This is why, when that day does come, many will "fall away." It won't be Life for them, just as it is not now for many. It's simply a belief or a good idea that can be abandoned in the face of opposition.

The second point is far harder to hear. In fact, I am struggling to write it because it goes against almost everything I was raised to believe. It is found in Romans 13:1-5. The quick takeaway is that we are to obey our governing authorities because they are appointed by God. Anyone rebelling against them rebels against God. There are all kinds of stipulations people place upon and within this passage these days. The problem is that Paul gave no qualifiers, and he was writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit. So if God does not change, then we are without justification or excuse in this matter.

I've heard most of the arguments against this understanding. Paul wasn't writing in our day and age. No, he was writing in an age where actions our society today still considers abhorrent were acceptable and commonplace. Paul wasn't talking about a government that was as godless as ours. No, he was speaking about a government far worse; one that had multiple gods which allowed people to do almost anything that passed into their minds. Paul was speaking about church authority, not secular governments. Honestly, no, he wasn't. This rationale requires that linguistic gymnastics be taken to a whole other level of extra. Extra foolishness, extra ignorance, extra rebellious. Paul clearly speaks of the authority wielding a sword to exact God's wrath upon wrongdoers. Unless someone wants to argue also for vigilante pastors, this cannot be speaking about church leadership.

The bottom line is the one that no one, let alone yours truly, actually wants to acknowledge and submit to: That regardless of what government we are under, and who is running it, it was GOD who appointed it for His own purpose and ultimate glory. And this, friends, is where we come full circle. Because no one wants to submit to the Lord on this issue, we have fallen very, very far down the devil's rabbit hole.

The Church Of Sodom

Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony (being overfed, indulgent), laziness, apathy (the poor and needy were at her door), and after placing themselves in the position of God, began committing those other things which are so often spoken of as their only sin. Sodom may, at one point, have been a good city. A decent place to live. We don't know, because the depths to which they sunk were all that is remembered.

The Christian Church today has its genuine, God fearing, Christ following, soul winning, example setting believers. It also has more than its fair share of charlatans, predators, fiends, fools and hardheaded boasters. It has a good number of genuine scholars and teachers desiring to know the truth and communicate it to others. It also has far too many ignorant and deceived leaders who don't know they're walking into a trap; as well as manipulative and power hungry megalomaniacs who set such traps.

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay 

In this case, we see two churches whose leaders are standing in violation of the nation's authorities. Forget that our Constitution grants the federal government special powers in situations such as these; forget that in such times, these men have no constitutional ground to stand upon. Rather, let us look at their actions in light of what we've just gone over.

We live in an age when we can gather virtually. We can gather via phone, video conference, or a host of other ways. There is no need to gather physically, except that it honors tradition. There are some things more important than tradition, such as keeping people alive and well. Physical gathering is important, but not as vital as protecting the lives and health of those within the church.

We are also capable of rendering unto God what is His without setting foot into a single church building. As a point of fact, our homes ought to be our personal sanctuaries. There should be no reason to feel as though God is closer in some other building and further away at home. Our study of Scripture, prayer, praise and worship can all take place within our homes and with family. No fancy church building needed.

We have not been told to cease preaching. We have been told to temporarily cease gathering physically. Emphasis on temporarily and physically. Were this "persecution," as both men have claimed, there would be no gathering of any kind; there would be no pretense of temporary; Howard-Browne would not have been allowed to post bail and Spell would certainly have been arrested and detained; and properties would have been seized and occupied. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. Ministers have been encouraged to continue preaching, praying and seeing to the needs of their congregations - Just without gathering in large crowds. For now. While this killer virus without a cure runs rampant.

Now since no one has been told to cease preaching; and no one has been told to bow down and pray to a statue of Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi; there is not one biblical justification, excuse, rational, or imperative for standing against our government. Not one.

What do these actions prove, then?

In the very best case scenario, it proves that both men are severely deficient in the areas of wisdom, discernment, biblical scholarship, and connection with the Holy Spirit. In the instance of Pastor Spell, some of his theological training may be at fault for a portion of his actions; the apostolic Pentecostal movement traditionally teaches no authority but God, in contradiction of Romans 13:1 which states in part that there is no authority but that which is from God. In the instance of Howard-Browne, it is possible that because of his Word of Faith and Prosperity theology and doctrines, he genuinely believed he could simply cast COVID-19 out of the building if not out of people.

In the very worst case scenario, both men are secretly working for a demonic shadow government bent upon destroying humanity and creating a scorched earth upon which may dwell Cthulhu. Probably not this scenario, though. I'd say almost certainly not.

The most likely scenario? Neither of these men have actually heard from God. Neither are being led by the Holy Spirit. This is the most logical conclusion given what we already know: God doesn't change; He doesn't contradict His Word; their actions contradiction His Word; ergo, He is not leading them.

More troubling about these instances is the fact that years from now, they will be looked upon as a reason to create an agency for the monitoring and regulation of places of worship. Their actions, and those of others yet to act out rashly and foolishly, are what are building the foundation of the very one world government they seek to oppose.

The most troubling thing in the present day is that their actions directly violate the law of God, while claiming it was being upheld. We are told by the Christ to be gentle as doves and wise as serpents; both of these creatures avoid threats. They don't court danger. We are told to care for the old, the widows, the sick and the orphans; luring these most at risk categories out to a single gathering location is not caring for them. It is the exact and precise opposite.

Original Photo by kailash kumar from Pexels - Alteration by AJ Unlimited

Finally, we're told that a pastor's job is to safeguard the flock. This is the very reason the term "pastor" is used; they are literally under-shepherds to the Good Shepherd. What do you think happens to an under-shepherd when the lead shepherd discovers they've intentionally led them through diseased lands and poisoned air?

 The core truth of the matter is as chilling as it is simple: Both of these men broke laws, both of God and of man. Both should be held accountable - And ultimately, both men will be. When the Christ speaks of the judgment of sheep and goats, notice that He does not say "you had me come to you." He said "you came to visit me."

Pastors, reverends, and ministers across the United States, understand this clearly: We will be held accountable not only for every sickness and every death caused by our stubbornness and rebellion, but for every single soul we put in danger by not keeping the law of God by obeying the law of man.




(Author's Note: This article represents a radical departure for me from a doctrine I've come to understand is wrong. I encourage all visitors to do the reading for yourselves, don't just take my word for it. God remains sovereign, and there will be times when He calls us to rise up. When that happens however, based upon Scripture, it will always accompany forced idolatry and/or an attempt to eliminate His people.)

Time To Grow Up America

To The Rescue...?

I am genuinely unused to defending a sitting president during a national crisis. It's not something that I believe I have ever had to really worry about. In my lifetime, there have not been a vast number of crises on a national level, so I guess I was simply assuming that people were able to recognize certain facts in such situations. Facts like response times, executive actions, congressional actions, border closings, and so forth.

Things that are explicitly intended to address a unique and specific event have historically had some opposition. As 'Honest Abe' once said, "you cannot please all the people all the time." Generally, that opposition, even in hindsight, can be understood. During the Civil War, it was a few Senators who opposed several pieces of legislation in favor of handling the problem another way. During World War Two, several members of Congress wanted the president to handle further engagement differently. Never did anyone simply oppose something solely for the sake of resisting.

So imagine my surprise when I find out that the Covid-19 stimulus legislation has been jam packed with a bunch of useless, pointless, bovine scat. I'm being entirely serious, here. Provisions for the Kennedy Center for instance, are not, as some have ignorantly claimed, to ensure employment security. The exact same sum of money was lobbied for about four months ago; for the exact same place; and it was to be used for new paint and flooring. Guess what that provision is marked as in the legislation? "Maintenance." That is just one example of dozens that have nothing to do with Covid-19.

The Freedom Of The Press

Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash

Then I discover that certain publications are claiming that the president's actions are "inadequate." One in particular ran a headline that said "Due To Several Missteps US Now Epicenter Of Covid-19." This publication went on to talk about all the things that they felt were done wrong. Mind you, each of these news sources (I use the term loosely) had previously attacked the president for going "too far."

Again, "you cannot please all the people all the time" comes to mind.

When it comes to the press, however, it seems that certain organizations don't even fit into that category properly. I believe we might have to add another line to the Emancipator's observation: "Some people will never allow themselves to be pleased." In the case of some so-called journalists, the president could personally disarm a criminal trying to mug them, and they'll write an article on his use of excessive force.

Intellectual Bankruptcy

Finally, today I heard something that nearly caused my brain to explode. It happened during the Covid-19 briefing. A reporter asked the president what he was planning to do about the airlines, using

Photo by christian buehner on Unsplash

a specific air line by name as an example. The president answered the question; and while he added a lot more information than was probably needed, it was answered. The reporter followed up with: "I guess my question is what do you intend to do about the individual employees and their jobs?"

Folks, I had to turn the briefing off at that point. I saw the comments on various social media platforms, many of which echoed the asinine and clueless idiocy of this pretender to journalism. I saw the usual hotheads using their usual fractured structure, limited vocabulary, and all three emoticons. Normally I would be tempted to reply to such troglodytes, but today I opted out entirely.

Instead, I've chosen to once again write. It's much easier to leave a link than to attempt a conversation, I've learned. Not that I won't make the attempt, mind you. There are simply some people who cannot be reasoned with, and you know those I reference.

Special Education

Now, I'm not going to go into detail about Nancy Pelosi and the flipped bird she gave to the American people, figuratively speaking. I'm not going to get into the various rags once known as respected news sources, either. It's not worth my time to do anything more than mention, and the writers are simply not worthy of my attention, period. Instead, I'm going to address the last issue. The sheer lack of free thinking, common sense, and rational logic. The issue of air lines and air line employees.

Photo by Helloquence on Unsplash

People have been talking about how nothing the president has done has addressed the individual. No measure that has thus far been taken by his administration has, apparently, provided for the individual citizen. These people speak out of their ignorance, whether that is willful or unintended.

Nowhere is this more clearly seen than with this air lines issue. The president stated that the legislation provides a sum of money for these companies to maintain operations and stay above the proverbial water as best they can. He talked about the various top minds he was bringing in to help craft and organize the response. The bottom line was that the air line companies are staying in business and continuing to operate.

The opposition then implied, or directly said in the case of social media comments, that it did nothing to help the employees.

Wow.

The United States has ten major air lines. American Airlines, the largest such company in the world as of 2019, employs over 128,000 people. Delta, the second largest, employs more than 86,000. United: 96,000. Southwest: 60,000. JetBlue: 22,000. Spirit: 7,000. Allegiant: 4,000. Hawaiian: 7,000. In case numbers make your eyes go blurry, this amounts to 410,000 people employed by these companies.

Photo by Gary Lopater on Unsplash

Those of you playing at home might have noticed that I did not include all ten companies. That's because not all of the companies had this information readily available. For the sake of completionism, let's just say that the remaining two (Frontier and Alaskan) each employ the average. That's 51,250 employees; so perhaps too high for those companies. Maybe we just use the low average: 6,000 employees. That's still a total of 422,000 people.

Now here's the next big deal. I rounded down. These air lines directly employ nearly half a million people. They subcontract almost twice that in the United States alone, making that number about 1.5 million. They also lease space in most airports, if you didn't know, meaning they indirectly impact the employment of airport workers. According to a five year old Congressional hearing, air lines also buy an average of 60% of their parts and services from United States companies.

What does all of this mean? What am I driving at?

Folks, especially you pretenders to journalism, if the air line companies go down, at the very least our unemployment rate rises by a half percent almost overnight. Best case scenario in that event. The worst case scenario is far less likely: Everyone they deal with goes under due to their absence and lack of patronage. Most realistic scenario? All the employees of these companies lose their jobs; half of the subcontract employees lose their jobs; massive personnel cutbacks take place in their supply companies (parts, etc), and airports experience massive layoffs. If every major airline in the United States went bankrupt overnight, it would affect a tenth of the US population.

Still wonder why it was so important to make sure that these companies got a financial shot in the arm?

The Spidey Phrase

I will never be in support of big government. I will never be in support of the bailout of a corporation whose CEO or Board played fast and loose with company funds. Nor will I ever be in favor of the government funding lazy and stubborn individuals. Don't read into the above views; understand the context.

We are dealing with a situation which is unlike anything we as a nation have previously dealt with. If there's interest, I'll get into that point in a later installment. Right now, suffice to say that the United States government is doing exactly what it is supposed to do in such situations: Protect its citizens. Many people are not working right now, not due to their own laziness, but because of what is essentially bioterrorism. Companies are not struggling because they made bad choices; they are struggling because of the sudden lack of business.

Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Moreover, a one time tax break on all citizens isn't going to help, nor will it help the various companies and corporations. It's too great a shortfall, taken on too suddenly. In my opinion, this kind of stimulus is the only thing that makes sense; and while I will have a problem with it if the government attempts to extend these benefits beyond the current crisis, it is what is needed right now. The desperate times and desperate measures adage holds true in this highly unusual point in history.

It was for reasons such as this that the framers of the Constitution alloted certain powers to each branch. Not to award cash prizes to pet projects. Not to fund or penalize preferred or distasteful entities. These powers were given to protect the people and infrastructure. It's time we got on board. Keep a watchful eye on our leaders, by all means; but quit debating the piddling and asinine.

In short: It's time to grow up, America.

Globalism Series - Open Borders

The ultimate goal of the globalist is a united world society, governed by a singular government enacting universal laws, enforced by a world court. This is a goal which is not only incompatible with the vision of the United States and the will of her people; it flies against many other governments and nations and peoples as well. To suggest that this would be a simple task if people would just "cooperate" is to make an ill-informed statement at best.

As discussed in the previous article, the only answer to radically alter the acceptance quotient of the world population is the total elimination of contrary thought. That can be done by the use of social pressure to deviate from independent thought and adhere to the normative mindset defined by those in power. It can be done through the use of political power, by means of criminalizing deviant behavior, expressions, and acts of will. It can be accomplished through the use of mass media's influence on the so-called "Low Information" populous. The ultimate method was demonstrated by Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin.

The introduction to this series discussed how this is done via society and the changing of language and expression. This subtle change allowed those with a globalist agenda to radically alter the willingness to accept socialistic and communistic philosophy within a few generations. The change is most evident in the fact that while there have been socialists and communists that have run for office in the US before, none have ever enjoyed the support that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren now see.

The previous article ended with a statement: "The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders."

As anyone who has followed the news during the Trump Administration is aware, the phrase "Open Borders" has been discussed at length. In fact, it has gotten to the point that few people within the news media are using it any longer. This does not by any means indicate that the drive to establish open borders has ended. If anything, like a shark, the time one should really be on guard is when it can no longer be seen.

Proponents of Open Borders philosophy are not all necessarily globalists. However, every globalist must by necessity support open borders. The difference between the two is that one wants more peace, love and dignity; the other recognizes the reality, which is total power and control. Make no mistake, Globalism uses the first group to drive forward the agenda of the second group.

At this point in play, discussion of no walls or fences on borders has run its course. That conversation will surface again, but for the time being, it has served its purpose. Now is the time to dial back the verbal debate. Now is the time to once more return to working in the shadows. Behind the backs of freedom loving people.

And as such, enter The Hague and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

By Hypergio - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0 

Within the halls of this massive compound, trials are held and verdicts are handed down which supersede the justice systems already in place within the countries that have signed on to the Rome Statute. (Text of Rome Statute) Not all countries which have signed the statute have justice systems. Of those that do, not all such systems work as they should. Thus the ICC serves a needed purpose, yet it can be exploited.

This statute is the same one that former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attempted to sign. In both cases, signatures was not ratified by Senate and were later revoked by the succeeding president. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have mentioned their support for the ICC several times, as well as their desire to see the US come under its jurisdiction. Obama has echoed these sentiments, even going so far as to declare the US a "cooperating observer."

It is through this back and forth relationship with the ICC that the United States of America; which withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and has most recently reversed the Obama era cooperation; has now found itself in a battle for sovereignty.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the backdoor to Open Borders in the US.

The Rome Statute explicitly allows the ICC to work and maintain jurisdiction where the signatory nation has no justice system in place, or has a corrupted system in place; think of the trial one might receive in China under Mao. (Incidentally, China is not a signatory.) The ICC has no jurisdiction over nations which have not signed; nor over nations which have rescinded their signatures; nor over nations which have a fully operational justice system and the capacity to prosecute and try criminal cases within that system. Nor does it have jurisdiction over the citizens of those countries, which seems a very redundant thing to write. Unfortunately, as will soon be seen, it must be put into words.

In short, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over  the United States, nor its citizens, nor any part of its governmental workings up to and including the military. Those are the guidelines by which the ICC was organized, they are not the opinion of any one person.

Right now, in The Hague within the walls of the International Criminal Court, members of the United States Military are being accused and tried. Not directly, but rather it is being argued that those who are accused of "war crimes," (think Nazi - These are the definitions for the phrase), should stand before the ICC. The information gathered by the ICCs Prosecutor against the US military service members; if indeed it exists; has not been turned over to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible. Rather, it is currently being argued that the ICC can force jurisdiction upon the US, because Afghanistan is a signatory.

While this may not seem like much; indeed, it may seem as though the United States should cooperate in this instance; nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that just by showing up, an official attorney for the US; say a member of the Attorney General's Office; gives the Prosecutor and the ICC at large carte blanche in any matter concerning the United States.

Some will and have argued that that would be fine, as it would apply only in this single case. Again, this is an erroneous statement made from either a grievous lack of insight, or a globalist perspective. Granting the ICC jurisdiction, even in a single matter, establishes precedent. That precedent is the foundation upon which the Globalist agenda seeks to override the sovereignty of the United States. Once the ICC has jurisdiction, the laws of that country become subject to those enacted by the United Nations, and other international bodies (e.g. INTERPOL).

This is the picture of a United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. A Marine is accused of killing a child in front of the child's mother. This is considered to be a war crime according to the case currently being presented in The Hague. The United States Attorney General tells the ICC Prosecutor that the US will handle the matter internally. The ICC at this stage can then point to the Rome Statute and claim that the US is in violation of implied acceptance of the Statute and the rules therein, subjecting the nation as a whole to disciplinary action. This is done by referral to the Assembly of States Parties; their referral to the United Nations with recommendations; and the acceptance by the United Nations to put those recommendations into force.*

To be clear on this last point: Even though the United States has a fully functional and generally sound justice system; and the ICC supposedly operates by the doctrine of complimentarity; the end result is either the loss of sovereignty for the Unites States and increased power for the ICC, or the economic damage such actions as embargoes can have upon a nation's economy.

For the sake of clarity, the doctrine of complimentarity simply states that "[t]he ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely." The ICC Prosecutor is at this stage arguing; whether literally or by implication; that the United States is subject to the Statute because of its actions within a member nation (State), and that it is unable to prosecute trials involving accused military members genuinely.

It should be noted that this tribunal in the International Criminal Court in The Hague is going on right now. In fact, it has been going on for the last two days, and has only a day of oral argument left. This is not fiction. This is not sensationalism. This is not "fake news." If ever something was truly deserving of being called fake, it would be every news network and outlet that has failed to cover this story as it should have been.

This is the backdoor by which the Globalists seek to enter. And this is the biggest fight against that agenda yet.




This is the second in a two part series. The previous article in this series can be found here. The introduction can be found here.



*Please forgive the obscene oversimplification of this process. It is far more complicated than presented, however such detail carries with it the threat of boredom in the average reader.

Confessions Of An Angry Driver

So I have a confession to make.

I am a recovering angry driver.

No, no. It's really true. I'm the driver that will slow down to five under the speed limit when another driver decides to tailgate me. I'm the driver that will match the speed of the vehicle next to me when some moron behind us is weaving back and forth trying to continue their forty over ride to Hell.

I know it's not good. It might not even be "Christian." You know what? There's a reason I don't have any Christian themed stickers or other adornments on our vehicle. Truth is, I genuinely don't want my poor handling of such situations to reflect badly on my Savior.

When a person becomes a follower of Christ, they do change. Sometimes it happens quickly, and other times it happens slowly. Most of the time, it's a varied pace. For instance, an addiction may disappear in a moment, but the swearing might last for years later. Most of the time, things hang on because they aren't so much problems as symptoms of a major issue. Once that big thing is dealt with properly, the symptoms tend to fade away.

Back to driving.

The people that drive with their blinkers on but never turn or change lanes tick me off. When people change lanes with less than a car length between us- My temper flares. When folks go through red lights; not accidentally, mind, but with birds flying; I fight back genuine rage.

I tend to be like Clive Owens' character in the movie Shoot 'Em Up. "Look. I move my finger one inch and other drivers know I intend to change lanes. This guy can't move his finger one lousy inch? What makes him so special?" His character rants a bit more and punctuates his statement by running the guy off the road.

I haven't done that; nor would I; but the temptation has certainly been there!

When bikers decide to ride up the double yellow line, I have to fight the urge to open my door. When they ride up the breakdown lane, I fight the urge to suddenly put on my hazards and pull over. When they tailgate me, I have to keep myself from hitting my brakes.

I'd like to claim that these things are issues of the past. They're not. I'm getting better at handling myself in these situations, but the temptation is absolutely and in no way any less than it was before.

The thing that has changed is that I don't view myself as a bastion of Justice any longer. I used to- I was a rescuer, addicted to injecting myself into situations I had no business being involved with just to say I had rescued someone from something.

That's been dealt with in a large part, though there are still times when that old urge resurfaces. The more it dies away, the more my driving anger simmers down.

It is strange to think that something like a savior complex could directly influence; even birth; a form of angry driving. Yet for me, the connection is unmistakable and undeniable.

In a society that medicates every little issue as if it were the end all be all, the concept of a root issue causing other issues seems to have gone by the wayside. Yet I truly believe that the more we recognize and acknowledge this reality, the more healthy we will become.

This ends the current sidebar. Now back to the regularly scheduled series, which really is in progress. More information was brought to my attention, which after extensive research, has required a total rewrite of part two.

Globalism Series - Globalism

This series was introduced in the last post, which can be read here. The gist is that Globalism, and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders, is perhaps the worst idea mankind has had. Well, apart from genocide. It is not only unrealistic, it is an open door to global catastrophe, likely ending in a return to the Dark Ages. Globalism was initially viewed as a flight of fancy and usable only for science fiction. Today it has become the delusion that many believe possible. Forwarded slowly and patiently by proponents through various means, Globalism is this era's Imperialism; but with a far more disastrous potential set of consequences.

The "Big Problem"

The biggest problem with Globalism is the existence of enemies of state. That is not to say that there are not other great problems, but this is by far the most immediate. 

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The concept of Globalism when put simply is this: No individual or sovereign nations, just a single world ruled by a group of individuals. While there are proponents who adhere to a more watered-down variant, the ultimate goal of the Globalist agenda is a singular world government. This means that all currencies, resources and laws must eventually be unified. It also means that all individual systems of government must fall. 

Initially this was one of the biggest reasons why many thought that Globalism could never be advanced as a viable possibility. It was suggested that the only way of doing this would be to court anarchy, and anarchists and governments don't readily mix. Thus, if the globalist were to incite anarchy within the nations; and then attempt to set up a world government; it was believed that they would fail miserably. 

Proponents of Globalism set upon a far different approach than the one previously mentioned. Rather than inciting anarchy, they simply worked subtly to breed dissatisfaction. It was a far more laborious process that required a long-term commitment, but globalists were willing to make that sacrifice. They introduced the concept of a singular government into every form of media, from educational to entertainment. At the same time, subtle changes were made within society to foster a growing dissatisfaction with current governments specifically, and life in general. An emphasis was placed upon the importance of dreams in the mid to late 1900's, and mass media underscored this message. At the same time, movies, theater, books, art and games were pushing a constant supply of dream material. It was suggested that the current system could not work, resulting in a dreary, post-apocalyptic world. Other offerings suggested that a Utopia could be achieved if only mankind could band together in a common bond. This approach worked.

The problem with the approach was that it did not address the major obstacle to the success of Globalism. That problem was the continued existence and growth of enemies of state; more specifically, those individuals and groups that would seek to work havoc in areas of the world populated by people they hated. Many of these enemies are not dissuaded from mass destruction today, even with the threat of reciprocity, annihilation, trial and imprisonment or execution. Think about this combined with a global society that doesn't restrict travel, and the problem becomes frighteningly clear.

The Attempted Solutions

"AOC"

The way to deal with enemies of state, and for that matter opponents of Globalism, has been debated. Some suggest that the simple act of opening national borders and allowing unrestricted travel will be a grand enough gesture of good will that enemies will simply cease to be enemies. For people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it seems as though belief in the magical solution is all there is to the problem. 

Others suggest turning to technology. Utilizing ground sensors, listening posts and video towers to monitor hypothetical borders; without implementing walls, increased border security personnel, or other practical forms of enforcement; will certainly discourage those with vile intent. Andrew Yang, a Democrat Presidential hopeful, has actually laid out something very similar to this approach. (It should be noted that as of yet, he has not openly endorsed Open Borders; but he is on board with AOC's "Free Income" stance, calling his concept "The Freedom Dividend." This alone would require another article.)

Still others suggest that what must happen is to simply do away with national identity. This has already been seen in practice on a smaller scale with attempts to color patriotism as "exceptionalism," describe a desire for secure borders as "racism" and "white supremacy," and various other methods. These individuals are not above twisting a movement to suit the purpose. For instance, the concept of "White Privilege." While originally describing a very real social problem, has also been hijacked for the purpose of shaming a large segment of the population into silence on any national issue. While some still utilize it for its original purpose, be aware that others use it for the sake of virtually bludgeoning a critic into silence. In spite of these guerrilla tactics the Big Problem remains the same, because they have not addressed reality.

The Actual Solution

What few globalists will admit, especially in this political climate, is that there is an extremely obvious and thoroughly effective solution to the Big Problem. Few if any proponents of Globalism will discuss this, because it clearly illustrates the carefully concealed double standard by which they and others of a similar mindset have come to thrive. Make no mistake: Those most powerful proponents embrace Globalism not because it requires harmony, but rather that it demands subjugation. Their altruism is shattered when motivations are broken down to the simplest denominator. They want more power. 

The aforementioned Big Problem, then, is a genuine obstacle. It cannot be properly addressed, however. Not until the majority of the population is on board with the life-changing answer to all things, which is the public relations campaign of Globalism. 

Photo by Václav Pluhař on Unsplash

The actual solution has also historically been called "The Final Solution." No, not "die Endlösung der Judenfrage," but something far more diabolical. In keeping with the theme, call it "die Endlösung für die Staatsfeinde." 

Pure and unaltered Globalism cannot function without unanimous consent. The most powerful proponents know this, and perhaps some of the lesser proponents recognize it also. The answer then is not a pie-in-the-sky alternative to immigration. Nor is it the delusional fantasy of making friends of enemies simply by treating them as friends. These do not address the core failings of humanity, and though Globalism is built upon a solidly humanistic foundation, it recognizes this as fact. Thus the actual solution is the termination of all opponents. 

Allow this to sink in for a moment.

Globalism cannot function without everyone agreeing to it. Not everyone does agree. Not everyone will agree. In order for it to be properly implemented and maintained, those in opposition must be dealt with à la Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. No other approach actually eliminates the greatest obstacle to the globalist agenda. Unlike the three beacons of awesomeness mentioned however, this must take place on a global scale. 

Breathe Easy... For Now

For those who view the world through the lens of transhumanism; for those who are hopeful agnostics or atheists; or those who hold some other view that takes a greater-than-deserved optimistic view of humanity; the idea of genocide on a global scale is abhorrent. When the summary of this article was shown to a professor emeritus of philosophy, his reaction to the last section's conclusion was a combination of horror and denial. He gave permission to be quoted in whole or in part, but only on the condition of anonymity:

"...I can find no rational reason to dispute your logic, yet I cannot accept it as being a possibility, let alone a probability. Though humanity is capable of great evil, it is also capable of great good. The more humanity evolves, the more likely the tendency towards good. ...Humanity's growth as a species from the earliest examples unto the present day, from physical attributes to ethical reasoning [demand that] ...I can neither dispute nor accept your conclusion due to conflict of interest."

For those who hold fast to the notion that this the only life one gets, and after comes the grave and nothingness, the following advice is given: Breathe Easy. The globalist agenda has been one of slow, steady and subtle change. This makes it highly unlikely that any planet-wide genocide will happen within the next several years. While the growth of Globalism has certainly accelerated, it is unlikely that any large segment of the population will accept such a solution... Yet. 

For those who believe that the Bible is real and trustworthy: Breathe Easy... For Now. The book of Revelation clearly shows that the Antichrist rules a one-world government, it is true. It is also clear that only under this same leader does the aforementioned genocide take place. Contrary to popular belief, while the last few presidents may be (or have been) possessed of a spirit of antichrist, not one is the Antichrist. 

The real problem facing our society today is not a sudden materialization of Globalism. The real problem is what absolutely must come before Globalism can be achieved. 

The real problem is not the "Final Solution" being ratified tomorrow. The real problem is what is being talked about now, on Capitol Hill. 

The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders.