Full Page

November 12, 2000

Election Reflections, 2000

Probably like many of you, I have been following the election situation. No doubt, it is the most unique situation in US history, as well as the most revealing. I will try to present the following in an orderly manner, but the more I worked with it, the longer it got. Therefore, there is a handout, so I do not have to quote so much.

Our text is Exodus 24:3-8:

And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. (Exodus 24:3- 8.)

There are so many things that have led up to the present mess with the election that I don't really know where to begin. So I will plunge in head first. The people agreed, and they willingly entered into a covenant with the God of the covenant. Then the Lord told them what would happen if they failed in keeping the covenant:

Leviticus 26:14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; 15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: 16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. 18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: 20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits. 21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate. 23 And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me; 24 Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. 25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

The covenant was willingly entered into by God's people. They knew the results if they failed to keep up their end. And the rest of the Word of God is a record of the ups and downs of God's people, according to their relationship in obedience to His word.

Now, let's apply that to our day -- it was clearly the Christian God Who established America. This nation was founded upon and by the Christian God, and this God is identified as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Jn. 8:54.) In other words, any god who is worshiped other than through the finished work of Jesus Christ for sinful man is not the God of the Bible, whether Old Testament or New.

These United States were to be the theater of the development and triumph of the Christian religion, the gospel of Christ. The Mayflower Compact was clear - the purpose of the new 'American' undertaking was "for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith,..."

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc. having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just and equall laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Codd the 11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our sovereigne lord, King James, of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.

Before they even stepped off the Mayflower, these men agreed among themselves, and they as a unified body covenanted together with God that the purpose of the civil nation they were about to start was for the glory of God, and for the advancement of the Christian faith. And they agreed that that Christian faith revolved around the sovereign grace of God and the finished work of Christ. They agreed that the laws governing their new nation would be basically God's laws as found in His Holy Word.

John Winthrop, aboard the flagship Arabella, spelled out what would happen to his national posterity if it forsook the covenant they made with God:

We are entered into covenant with [God] for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord has given us leave to draw our own articles; we have promised to base our actions on these ends, and we have asked Him for favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then He is has ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect strict performance of the articles contained in it. But if we neglect to observe these articles, which are the ends we have propounded, and -- dissembling with our God -- shall embrace this present worked and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us and be revenged of such a perjured people, and He will make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant. ("Written by John Winthrop, 1588-1649, aboard the flagship Alabella. This document spells out what happens to a people when they forsake their covenant with God. Our nation needs to heed its warnings." God and Government, The Restoration of the Republic, V. III.xi. Emp. added.)

Thus they again agreed together that the Law of God would be their law, and if their posterity departed from those laws, then the Lord Himself would break out against them and their nation in Hs wrath. Let me ask: Can we blame them for calling down the vengeful wrath of God against their posterity if that posterity departed from the way the fathers paid such a high price to establish before the Lord? I dare say that any committed Christian business man would desire God's curse against anyone who took over his businesses after he is gone, if the heir did not continue to build upon the foundation the founder paid such a high price to establish. In other words, he built his business upon Christian principles, and he does not want to see what he worked so hard to build used to serve the world, flesh and the devil.

Note the establishment and the wording of America's first constitution:

The first organization of civil society and government was made, in 1639, at Quinipiack, now the beautiful. city of New Haven. The emigrants, men of distinguished piety and ability, met in a large barn, on the 4 th of June, 1639, and in a very formal and solemn manner, proceeded to lay the foundations of their civil and religious polity. (The Christian Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, B.F. Morris, Introduction, p 52. G.W. Childs, Philadelphia, PA, 1864.)

The subject was introduced by a sermon from Mr. Davenport, the pastor, from the words of Solomon, "Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars." After a solemn invocation to Almighty God, he proceeded to represent to the Plantation that they were met to consult respecting the setting up of civil government according to the will of God, and for the nomination of persons who, buy universal consent, were in all respects the best qualified for the foundation work of a church. He enlarged on the great importance of thorough action, and exhorted every man to give his vote in the fear of God. A constitution was formed, which was characterized as "the first example of a written constitution; as a distinct organic act, constituting a government and defining its powers." The preamble and resolutions connected with its formation are as follows: --"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God, by wise disposition of his divine providence, so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield, are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the river of Connecticut, and the lands thereunto adjoining, and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requireth that, to maintain the peace and union of such a people, there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion should require; do, therefore, associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public STATE or COMMONWEALTH, and do enter into combination and confederation to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our LORD JESUS, which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches, which, according to the truth of said gospel, is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such laws, rules, and orders, and decrees as shall be made. "I. That the Scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to preform to God and to men, as well in families and commonwealths as in matters of the church. "II. That as in matters which concern the gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public offices which concern civil order,-as the choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature,-they would all be governed by those rules which the Scripture held forth to them."

III. That all those who had desired to be received free planters had settled in the plantation with a purpose, resolution, and desire that they might be admitted into church fellowship according to Christ.When these resolutions had been passed, and the people had bound themselves to settle civil government according to the divine word, Mr. Davenport proceeded to state what men they must choose for civil rulers according to the divine word, and that they might most effectively secure to themselves and their posterity a just, free, and peaceable government. After a full discussion, it was unanimously determined--"V. That church members only should be free burgesses; and that they only should choose magistrates among themselves, to have power of transacting all the public civil affairs of the plantation, of making and repealing laws, dividing inheritances, deciding of differences that may arise, and doing all things and businesses of a like nature." ... (Ibid., 66-68. Emp. added. )Since there was not yet an established church, a church was formed with its proper officers. After this, the CHURCH MEMBERS elected proper civil offers, with Theophilus Eaton the first governor of the civil commonwealth.

The General Court, established under this constitution, ordered,- "That God's word should be the only rule for ordering the affairs of government in this commonwealth." (Ibid., 66-68.)And thus we see that the civil government was patterned after the church, and civil officers had to be church members. The only influence the church had upon the civil government was preaching to and teaching the church members. (Interesting thought: There are Christens who believe Christens should not be involved in politics. Thus those who first landed at Plymouth Rock were in sin -- they professed to be Christians, and they, out of necessity, formed a civil government.

Our point is this: The fathers of this nation entered into covenant with the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, they agreed to God's wrath against their posterity if that posterity departed from the law and commandments of the Lord God.

There are many areas today where we see God's wrath against the posterity for not only departing from the covenant made by our fathers with God, but their posterity is at war against the Covenant God and His Law-word. In this message, we are only looking at the one that is currently on everyone's mind, the 2000 election.

Among the many news reports I have heard, I heard one reporter say that the battle was between the white American male and the "minorities," blacks, and Spanish. Thus, the 2000 election shows us that America is no longer as it was founded, a White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christian (WASP) nation, though the White Christian male still has a large influence.

Over the years, the goal of the God haters has been to break the WASP's hold in this country, and this election proved that they have succeeded. The Indianapolis Star had an Op Ed piece by David Broder, "A nation evenly but not deeply divided." In it, he said,

This nation has rarely appeared more divided than it does right now, even though no single is sue dominates the political debate, as slavery did in the first half of the 19th century or the welfare state did for a half century after 1930.Both the House and Senate are split down the middle, with mathematical precision. The presidential vote was about as close as it could be. Even at the grass-roots level, there is parity between Republicans and Democrats in the legislatures.However you sliced the election returns, you saw division. Men voted one way; women the other. The races divided in their partisan preferences. The cities went Democratic; the small towns and rural areas Republican. The suburbs the buffer zone of politics, split evenly between A1 Gore and George Bush, a phenomenon you could see with your eyes as neighbors planted lawn signs for the opposing candidates.As Benjamin Barber, the Rutgers University student of American politics and society, said, "There are two Americas, and when you look at the electoral map, the division has never been clearer." Barber said that a cultural divide underlies the geographic. "One is an old-fashioned America of traditional values. The other wants a much more open, diverse society, less judgmental of people. One America wanted to impeach and remove (President) Clinton; the other wanted to exonerate him."... (Indianapolis Star, November 10, 2000)Mr. Broder points out that Gore represents "a much more open, diverse society, less judgmental of people." In other words, Gore represents an America that wants to get as far away from the Christian God of the Bible as possible, and follow its own heart into every kind of imagination - sodomy, abortion, adultery, &c. (See Ps. 2.) Gore represents every person desiring to be his or her own god, each establishing his own code of moral conduct without being condemned by others. (What he stands for is the logical conclusion of the "age of Grace" - that is, we are under grace, so we are no long under law; we can do what we feel is best for us, and on one has the right to judge us.)

On the other hand, Bush represents "an old-fashioned America of traditional values." In other words, Bush represents the Christian moral foundation of this country, the foundation that the founding fathers laid in 1620.

Now, I am not at all implying that Bush is our kind of Christian, nor am I saying that he is any kind of a Christian at all for that matter. But I do know that the WASP forsook Buchanan and went for Bush. Even with all the support the "Christian" community could muster, the majority of the vote went to Gore, implying that America has now turned its back upon its Christian moral values, and the covenant made so many years ago.

Please note that I am only saying that the public perception of Bush and Gore is such. I personally believe Bush is owned lock, stock and barrel by the same one world community that owns both Clinton and Gore. The establishment saw that the voters again could only chose the lessor of two evils; both are as one world as anyone can be. America may have a little longer before total destruction under Bush than under Gore. However, after doing some research into GMO, or high-tech foods, if Gore's environmentalism stands against GMO, I would have to support him over Bush, if Bush supports it. But the Clinton-Gore administration is the one that really gave the boost to GMO.

Regardless, what has happened? Hillary has been elected, and Gore has the popular vote. Both Hillary and Gore have been closely tied to the most scandal plagued administration probably in US history. This election shows that we are in for some very difficult times because the covenant made by the founding fathers with the Lord, as revealed in the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, has been broken.

By the way, if Gore gets in, then we have an antichrist as a vice president - that is, a practicing Jew. Jesus Christ clearly told the Jews that the god they worshiped, which did not point to himself, was a false god and not the God of Abraham. Thus the Christian God is defined as He Who: 1) can be approached by all nationalities; 2) is approached only through the shed blood of His Son, Christ Jesus, and 3) is revealed in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ (thou shalt call his name JESUS, Mat. 1:21.) Thus He is not the Jewish god nor the god worshiped by the majority of "religious" people today, for their god does not require the blood sacrifice for sin. These united States do not have a Judaic/Christian heritage; they have a distinctly Biblical Christian heritage, emanating from the desire to spread the gospel of Christ to every creature.

We saw in Exodus 19:8 & 24:3, 7, that God's people at the mount said, "All the words which the Lord hath said will we do." (Compare Jn. 14:15 with Acts 7:30-38: It was Jesus Christ Who spoke to God's people at the mount.) God's people at the mount agreed to do the Law of God as revealed through Moses, and spoken by Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:11 (Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.) tells us that God recorded for our instruction in His word what happened to His people as their posterity failed to do what their fathers promised they would do.

The founding fathers of this nation (the U. S. of A.), with no thought of whether or not they were descendants of the Hebrews of old, said, "All the words of God's Law we will do." And thus they made a covenant with the Christian God of both the Old and the New Testaments, for the God they covenanted with is revealed in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The founding fathers of this nation promised to base the laws and actions of their new nation in Holy Scripture; they promised the Christian God that if He prospered them, they and their posterity would render strict obedience to God's Word; they made it clear that if the nation they founded departed from the covenant they made with the Christian God, that God's wrath and vengeance would be upon the faithless people, their own descendants, for breaching their covenant.

America's founding fathers' agreement with the Lord God placed the following generations of Americans within the same covenant -- conditions of possessing the land that have stood since Abraham. The original covenant was not between the civil authority and the people under that authority; the covenant was between the people and the Christian God of the Bible Who established their nation. (Lev 25:18, 19, Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety. And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat your fill, and dwell therein in safety.)

We must all admit that the covenant has been broken, but which covenant? Those looking and hoping for a political solution requiring no repentance and obedience to God's Word (i.e., Bush supporters) say the covenant that is broken is between the Federal civil government in D.C. and the people, i.e., the Constitution. However, that is NOT WHAT John Winthrop would say if he were alive today.

Those of us who believe God's word know the covenant that is broken is the one between the people and the Christian God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The fathers of this nation promised God they would render strict obedience to God's Law-Word, and they agreed to God's righteous vengeance if they or their children departed from that covenant. Every weapon that fallen man can bring to bear has been used against that founding covenant to pattern America's laws after God's Law-Word. The state education system has been, probably, the most effective weapon. (A few years ago, the largest employer in our area was laying off many Americans from their high paying jobs, and replaced them documented and undocumented Mexicans. There was such a community stir over the loss of the good jobs that the company held a public meeting to defend its use of Mexican labor over American. At this meeting, a white school teacher from Lafayette stood up and rejoiced that America's Anglo-Saxon culture was being destroyed.)

And the pulpits have been just as effective, as pastors stand up and say that the Law of God no longer is binding in this age of Grace.

Today we are seeing the obvious results of the departure of the descendants of those founding father departing from the God of the covenant.

Every one of us need to renew the covenant we entered into at our baptism. That covenant is the same as the one made by the fathers of our nation.

EXTRA

I have been struck by the many things that seem to be coming to a head: Generic Engineered food has started coming into use in the past 20 years; "social phobias" have been running rampant starting about 20 years ago; and new diseases which the medical community knows nothing about. All of these things deserve an article, upcoming soon.



A closing note on the positive

Roy Moore sews up race for chief justice Ten Commandments flap earned him recognition, though lesser- known Sharon Yates remained optimistic

11/08/00

By ALAN CHOATE - Capital Bureau

GADSDEN - Judge Roy Moore, a conservative Christian known nationwide for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, decisively defeated Sharon Yates to win election as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Moore, a Republican, had been heavily favored to win the seat by a solid margin, and his victory retained the GOP's hold on the seat.

Yates maintained throughout the campaign, and reiterated Tuesday night before the outcome became clear, that she was "very, very optimistic." "When I first started to try cases, I was often underestimated," Yates said, likening the race to the start of her legal career. "I liked that, because most of the time I was underestimated, I won those cases. Earlier in the evening, Phillip Jauregui, Moore's campaign chief, had apologized that the heavy turnout was delaying a victory celebration. "Things look good," Jauregui said.

The winner will replace retiring Chief Justice Perry Hooper Sr.

The victory cemented Moore's rise to prominence that arguably began when the American Civil Liberties Union sued him in 1994 over a hand-carved copy of the Ten Commandments he had hanging in his courtroom. While the case wound through federal and state courts, Moore became a nationally known speaker, particularly on issues dear to religious conservatives. His popularity soared when, in 1996, the Alabama Supreme Court threw out the challenge, allowing Moore to claim victory. The popularity and name recognition worked against Yates, a well-respected if not well-known Court of Civil Appeals judge. She is next in line for presiding judge of that court, since another judge's retirement leaves her as the most senior member.

She tried throughout the campaign to downplay religion as a campaign issue, noting frequently that she is a Southern Baptist and stating in campaign ads that the Bible is central to her life.

Holly Edwards, a Gadsden housewife, underscored how difficult it was for Yates to battle Moore's public persona. "I voted for the woman. What's her name? Oh, yeah, Sharon Yates," Edwards said Tuesday. "They're both good, but I'm a Democrat, so I vote Democrat all the way."

Gadsden retiree Betty Brannon said she threw her support to Yates in part because of the religious overtones in the race. "I just felt like there was too much publicity with the Ten Commandments thing," she said. "That had nothing to do with this race."

Unemployed steelworker Gary W. Boggs disagreed, saying Moore impressed him. "He didn't ask for that. All he did was have the Ten Commandments put on the wall," said Boggs, who added that he had known Moore for 18 years. "He stood his ground on it, and I admire him for that. "I believe he'll be honest and fair, and that's hard to find in a politician."

Moore, with his national reach and established popularity, held a fund-raising advantage throughout the campaign, though both candidates raised more than $1 million. He received significant amounts of money from traditional GOP-aligned business groups, support that had been in doubt after the Republican establishment's preferred candidate - Justice Harold See - lost to Moore in a primary race.

Yates' largest donor was the state Democratic Party, which in turn received most of its funding from Alabama's largest trial lawyer firms.

Interested in the election? Check,

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/20001106_xcbtl_voter_frau.shtml

http://newsmax.com/pundits/Frisa.shtml

Home Messages Topics