The Biblical Examiner
An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand

April/May 2010


Another Jesus
Gospel for a New Age
Wolf as a Sheep, Newt Ginrich
To your health
One Job Saved
Vineland Map
Apostasy Defined
Juture Jewish Temple
For those over 50
Justice, Mercy, restitution
Origin of Prisons
Death of a City

Another Jesus

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)

The verses following our text contain an enlightening warning about false teachers. One should not carelessly follow a personable religious leader merely because he "preaches Jesus" or urges audiences to "receive the Spirit."

"Jesus" is quite popular among worldly people today, but not the true Jesus. The popular Jesus may be the baby Jesus in the manger at Christmastime, or the buddy Jesus of Nashville "gospel" music, or the success-counseling Jesus of the positive thinkers. He may be the romantic Jesus of the Christian crooners, the rhythmic Jesus of Christian rock, or the reforming Jesus of the liberals, but none of these are the Jesus preached by the apostle Paul, and therefore not the real Jesus who saves men and women from their sins.

Jesus in reality is the Lord Jesus Christ, the offended Creator of the universe (Colossians 1:16), who had to die as man on the cross to redeem us through His shed blood (Colossians 1:14, 20), and who then rose from the dead to be set "far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named" (Ephesians 1:21). Finally, it is this Jesus "who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom" (2 Timothy 4:1).

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison


The trail of blood

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (Gen. 3:21.)

There is a common heresy today that says God has more than one plan of salvation: one for the Old Testament Saints, one for the Church Age Saints for the Millennial Saints. But what does God say?

Some time ago, I encountered an old article (from 12/ 86) entitled, "SHOULD WE ABANDON THE BLOOD?" It was a paper put out by the man who calls himself MR. BUSS, Wally Beebe. His article reminded me to cover an important point, the Blood of Christ.

In the text above, we see the first sacrifice for sin. Adam knew that he had disobeyed God. His first response was to do something to cover over that sin, then he avoided the Lord. The Lord sought him out, confronting him with his sin. God then slew the animal, shed its blood that the sinless victim might die in Adam's place. Then He clothed our first parents in its skin, covering the sin by that sacrifice. This action of the Lord God is a picture of the slaying of the innocent, spotless, Lamb of God from before the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8.)

Accordingly, we see this principle established in the garden: the wages of sin is death; someone must die for that sin, the sinner or an innocent victim. The shedding of the blood is the picture of the life of the victim being poured out in the place of the sinner. And thus is established the principle is of a sinless victim in the place of the sinner, i.e.,a substitute.

Next, we have Noah offering the blood sacrifice. (Gen. 8:20.) And we can follow the blood sacrifice throughout the book of Genesis. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all offered the blood sacrifice that spoke of the coming blood sacrifice, the Lamb of God. This Old Testament blood sacrifice continually called attention to the need of a sinless substitute to die in the place of the sinner.

Job, probably the oldest book of the Bible, written about the time of Abraham, clearly shows us that long before the law was given to Moses in the book of Exodus, men understood the necessity of the blood sacrifice. Job offered burnt offerings as the high priest of his family. (Job 1:5.)

Thus, the need for a sinless sacrifice is built into mankind. Job was not a Hebrew as was Abraham, yet he knew that he had to have the sacrifice for sin. Sinful men must suppress this knowledge of God. (Rom.1:18-20.)

Next we have the Ten Commandments. At the end of them (vs. 24-26), the blood sacrifice and offering is given because the Lord God knew that His law would be violated no matter how vocally the people said otherwise – thus no matter how loudly people may say they are living a life pleasing to God, needing no sacrifice for their sins, God says otherwise. There are none who have kept or do keep the law of God perfectly. Thus, all are sinners in need of a sacrifice in their place.

A multitude of other passages tell us that the life of all flesh is in the blood (e.g., Gen. 9:4, Lev.17:11,14). And the blood is given to make an atonement, i.e., covering, for our souls. (Lev. 17:11.) Accordingly, the blood covers man's sins, so he can again be at one with God, as was lost by Adam (at-one-ment). The Old Testament blood covered the sins of the seeker to make it possible for him to come to the Thrice Holy God. And without the shedding of blood, no person from Adam on, will ever be at peace with God. (Heb. 9:22.) Without the shed blood, only judgment and wrath awaits the sinner. And all are sinners.

Leviticus 16

In vv. 5-21, there were to be two goats set aside. Vv. 15, 16, one goat was to be killed and his blood, as well as the blood of the bullock, had to be sprinkled before the Holy Righteous God on the mercy seat, which made atonement for the people – the blood of the innocent victim covered their sins, so they would not die before a Holy God.

The priest took the live goat, and confessed the sins of the people over him; the goat was then released into the wilderness. This action clearly looked forward to the shed blood which would bring sinful man back into the fellowship with the Father which Adam lost, and the total removal of sin from the sinner as far as the east is from the west – all through the sacrifice of Christ.

The law was clearly established — there HAD TO BE the shedding of blood and the presenting of that blood before God on the altar and mercy seat for there to be any covering of sin under Moses' law. It was God's unchanging law, and it could not be avoided. If there was no blood shed, there was no atonement whatsoever for the sinner. The law required the substitute of a sinless victim to make a way for rebellious man to fellowship with God.

New Testament

Our Lord said, For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat. 26:28.)

The old covenant was sealed with the blood of bulls and goats, which could only cover sin as the better sacrifice was waited for – these old rites and rituals spoke of God's perfect substitute, Jesus.

The new covenant is sealed with the blood of God Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ – this blood does not cover sin as the blood of the old covenant did; rather, it does away with sin, as far as the east is from the west.

Christ is dogmatic – there is no life unless we have part in His shed blood: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (Jn. 6:53.) Moreover, Acts 20:28 tells us the blood of Christ purchased the Church.

Romans Three

First, Paul established in chapter two that God's standard of judgment is according to the truth as revealed in His word, i.e., the Old Testament. His statement caused quit a bit of difficulty with his fellow Jews because they fully believed that God would judge them according to their birth – they were born in the lineage of Abraham, and fully expected special favors from God because they were Abraham's seed. When Christ assured the Jews that they would be judged according to the truth and not according to their birth, they sought to kill him. (Jn. 8:37-40.)

Second, both Christ and Paul pointed out that the true Jew, child of God, was by faith. All, regardless of birth, who would exhibit the faith of Abraham were the seed of Abraham. (Jn.8, Rom.2:28, Gal. 3:16, 17.)

Third, "OK," said the Jews in Romans 3 – "If this is true, then what advantage is it that we are Jews and not Gentiles?" Paul answers, "The advantage is that God showed special favor to you in that He committed the oracles of God to you, v. 2. You were chosen out of all the nations of the earth to receive the word of God and for God to show Himself strong through."

Fourth, vv. 9-20. Paul plainly tells them that birth or nationality has nothing to do with being guilty before God. Whether they were Jew or Gentile, both were equally guilty; both were equally dead in trespasses and sins; neither had any desire to seek God. Thus, even Abraham was not seeking God when God called him.

Keep in mind that God's mercy in the Old Testament was not restricted to the nation of Israel. Ninevah, under Jonah and over Jonah's objections, was recipient of God's mercy. So were a great many Egyptians who exercised faith in the Passover lamb and came out of Egyp as part of the covenant nation, Israel. We also have Ruth as well as Rahab who were examples of saving faith.

V. 19, any argument by anyone to the contrary, e.g., "I'm good enough. I don't need a sacrifice for my sins", was stopped with the giving of the law, which proves that all men are equally guilty and in rebellion against God. No person could ever, nor can they ever keep the law well enough to stand before a righteous and holy God, v.20.

Paul tells the Jews here in Romans3, "Being a descendant of Abraham won't spare you from the judgment of God. You still must have a blood sacrifice, just as was required of your fathers."

Fifth, vv. 21-23. The fact that no one, Jew nor Gentile, can be justified before God by keeping the law is not a new doctrine. It was clearly presented in the garden in Adam's fall and the sacrifice that had to be made for him. This doctrine was faithfully carried through for 4,000 years until Christ. It all pointed to Christ and His sacrifice. All the Old Testament saints are with the Lord because of their faith in the coming redemptive work of the Son. We can only speculate about how they knew about Christ. We do know they are with the Lord because of their faith in Christ. (Job 19:25-27, John 8:56.)

V. 23, Paul points out that there is not one thing presented in Christ that was not already presented in the law and the prophets. (Rom. 3:11, 12 quotes Ps. 14.)

Sixth, Paul builds on Romans chapter two – God is no respecter of persons. Being Jew or Gentile holds no water with Him, for His judgment is based on truth, Jesus Christ. The Gentiles before Christ came into the congregation of the Lord just as the Gentiles after Christ come into the congregation of the Lord, through faith in the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Righteousness for salvation has never been the result of keeping the law of Moses, circumcision, nor baptism. Being righteous before the Father has always been through faith in the redemptive work of Christ. (Rom. 3:22-26.)

Seventh, 3:27 – again, Paul is tearing down the false hope which the Jews (members of the nation of Israel) had. Their hope for peace with the Father was their membership in the physical nation through which God had cho sen to work. He tells them they have nothing to boast in because they have no hope apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

Eighth, vv. 28-30 – to make matters worse for these Jews, he tells them that the Gentiles have the same freedom of access to the Father as they do, and both through faith in the sacrifice of Christ. Neither Jew nor Gentile will approach the Father through the old Jewish rites and rituals any longer. These Jews were extremely proud of their circumcision. According to their tradition, circumcision proved that they were someone special to God. They then lived like they had God in a box because they were circumcised. They felt that circumcision gave them license to do as they pleased and God was still obligated to them.

The teaching at the time of the writing of the New Testament included the belief that those who had observed this rite of circumcision as proof that they were in this nation of God had a place reserved in paradise for them. It is impossible to properly understand the New Testament without understanding the hold that circumcision had on the new converts to Christ. Almost all of the epistles refer to this problem.

Charles Hodges wrote in 1835, in his commentary on Romans:

It is obvious that the Jews regarded circumcision as in some way securing their salvation. That they did so regard it, may be proved not only from such passages of the New Testament where the sentiment is implied, but also by the direct assertion of their own writers. Such assertions have been gathered in abundance from their works by Eisenmenger, Schoettgen, and others. For example, the Rabbi Menachem, in his Commentary on the Books of Moses, Fol. 43, col. 3, says, "Our Rabbins have said, that no circumcised man will see hell." In the Jalkut Rubeni, num, 1. it is taught, "Circumcision saves from hell." In the Medrasch Tillim, fol. 7, col 2, it is said, "God swore to Abraham, that no one who was circumcised should be sent to hell." In the book Akedath Jizehak, fol. 54, col. 2, it is taught that "Abraham sits before the gate of hell, and does not allow that any circumcised Israelite should enter there." The apostle considers circumcision under two different aspects. First, as a rite supposed to possess some inherent virtue or merit of its own; and secondly, as a sign and seal of God's covenant. (pg.63. Circumcision equals baptism??)

In another book, The Midrash (which gives the traditional teaching of the Jews on the O.T.), vol.I, pg. 396, we find a man rescued from an attack by his enemies because he had just been circumcised.

Some time ago, The U.S News and World Report had an article about the increase of people attending "worship services" that had a lot of ritual in them. It is sad that people identify ritual with worship when nothing could be further from the truth. True worship is meditation on His word day and night and living for Christ and honoring Him with all of our actions. True worship is joyful obedience to every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Ps. 1, Mat. 4:5, 1 Cor. 10:31. Paul, as well as all the New Testament authors, is very hostile against any kind of ritual being identified in any way with saving faith. There is nothing wrong with rituals as such. The problem is the loss of the meaning behind those rituals, and their substitution for faith and the working out of faith.

Paul's message caused no less hatred, as he had to flee for his life more than once when he presented this "bloody" message. The Jews hated the message that their birth and circumcision would not gain special favors before God, but the Gentiles loved it.

To these false teachers circumcision guaranteed their place in heaven as well as their protection in time of need. To these teachers, salvation did not change the requirement to be circumcised in order to be accepted by God. And Paul points out that circumcision does no such thing. It is their faith in Christ that makes them accepted to God, with the Gentiles haveing equal access to the Father through Christ. (This is God's equal access law. Every one has equal access to Him through the sacrifice of Christ. And everyone is equally cut off apart from Christ.)

Ninth, v. 30 – this chapter closes with Paul answering another point. "OK," they say, "If the law doesn't justify us, and the Gentiles have equal access to the Father through faith, that means we no longer need to honor and keep the law of God as given to Moses."

Paul says, God forbid that you would think such a thing. Even though the law doesn't save (it never did), and faith does, faith makes one desire to keep the law.

Thus, Romans chapters 2 and 3 only reestablishes the basic facts which were already in existence:

1) All are sinners not because of the race we belong to, but because of our nature. We are all children of Adam, Jews and Gentile alike, heir to his rebellion and his separation from God.

2) It is impossible for the sinner to approach the Father without a blood sacrifice, an innocent victim which must die in the sinner's place was firmly established in the Garden. Righteousness and approach to God could only be accomplished through faith in the sacrifice, and this righteousness has always been available to anyone through faith in Christ, whether a Hebrew or not (the Exodus and Nineveh).

3) The sacrifice pointed to the sacrifice which Jesus would make. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God was established at the very first, and was spoken of in all the law and the prophets, which Christ showed His followers after His resurrection. (Lk. 24:40-48.)

4) The relationship with God which Adam lost through sin is completely restored through faith in the redemptive work of Christ, the second Adam. (1 Cor. 15:47.) With that relationship is also the benefits and responsibilities which Adam forfeited.

5) All have sinned because of Adam's sin, and the law proves it. All are under the death penalty; all need the sinless sacrifice, substitute to enable them to approach the Father. No one ever had a desire to approach the Father (Rom. 3:11, 12) without God placing that desire in the heart as an act of His sovereign grace, v.24. (John 6:44, 65, Eph. 2:13.)

6) Finally, all who will come to Christ by faith will have the redemption promised to Adam in the garden.

Here is propitiation – through faith in His blood. The blood of Christ appeases the wrath of God against the believer's sin. Here also is justification – the blood of Christ applied to the believer through faith in His finished work made him just as if he had never sinned before the Father.

We are told in both Leviticus 17 and Matthew 26:28, that the remission of sin is found in His shed blood. Remission is a dismissal, release, release from the penalty and the power of sin. And as sin's power is released from over the individual, it is also released from over society as the individual acts out the implications of his salvation— that is, worships God. There are a great many passages which tell of remission, but we will not look at them now.


Modern Christianity, as a whole, has separated the word of God into two words of God (which, of course, is not longer the Christian God's word, for His word is one word as he is one God). There is the word which was given before Christ and the word given after Christ which supersedes the word which had been given previously.

There have been many disastrous results of this belief which was started by a man named Marcion of Sinop, near the middle of the second century, A.D. Up until his time, the word of God was seen as one word from one God from Genesis through Revelation.

The one disaster we are concerned about today is the one having to do with the Old Testament principle of an innocent victim pouring out its life-blood in the place of the sinner, so the sinner can approach God. A result of this division of God's word, and thus the lack of emphasis on the substitutionary death of an innocent victim, is the subversion of the plan of salvation. The plan of salvation

(which is no plan of salvation) has been reduced to where the necessity of faith in the finished work of Christ is not presented, or if it is, it is not emphasized. In place of presenting faith in what the Lamb of God did in the place of sinners, there are many other things presented.

The motivation for this essay was an old article by Wally Beebe that I pulled from my files. In Jack Hyles' hay-day, he was known as Mr. Buss. He closes his article thusly:

Remember though, that Cain was rejected and Abel was accepted. Perhaps there is someone who is reading this article who has known about the blood of Christ, the crucifixion, but has never personally known how to apply this to your sins. It is applied by you receiving, by faith, the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart and asking Him to save you. Romans 10:13 "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The first born in Egypt was killed by God's angel if the blood was not applied to the door post. The first born could have protested all he wanted to that the death had already been accomplished but until the blood was applied, it was not efficacious! Therefore, dear friend, first of all receive Christ into your heart as Savior, believe what He did for you on the cross, ask Him to come into your life and save you the best you know how, and them rest in the finished work of Christ!

Beebe just said that the way you apply the blood is by asking Jesus into your heart. That is as unscriptural as John MacArthur indicating that the blood only shows that Christ died a violent death, meaning that any death would do as long as it was violent.

Look at this foolishness in the light of Leviticus 16 – there is not the slightest hint in the Old Testament that the plan of salvation even contains anything such as:

Turn your life over to the Lord. (Turn your life over to the goat there in Lev.)

Receive Jesus into your heart. (Can't you see the priest in Lev. 17, telling the people who were looking for atonement, "Just receive this goat into your life.")

Ask Jesus into your heart and trust him to do that. (I am confident that those who do that without properly understanding of the substitutionary work of Christ do indeed receive "Jesus," but he is the Jesus spoken of in 2 Cor. 11:4.)

Note that God can use any means to bring one to salvation, even corrupt wording. But let us not be the ones to use the false words.

The law clearly establishes the principle – the only hope for redemption was to trust that goat (the innocent victim) to die in the seekers place for his or her sins. No one could violate this law and live to see God. Paul says that this law was clearly established and revealed in the written law and prophets.

The righteousness of God that will see God is established by faith in the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God in the sinner's place.

"How do we apply that blood for our sins if it isn't by asking Jesus into your heart?"

By faith, just as the Old Testament priests did. One must reach out to the Lamb of God, and place all of his trust in what He did for the sinner in his place. A person may not understand all of the implications of the shed blood of Christ at the time of salvation, but the person must know about and understand that Christ died in his place, and that he must, by faith, come to Him to pay the penalty for his sins. (Rom. 10:14.)

Those who are taught, as Mr. Beebe teaches, that they must ask Jesus into their heart in order to have the atonement offered by God, more than likely have nothing. Atonement can only come as the result of knowing about and placing one's trust in the sinless sacrifice that was made in the sinner's place. And this fact has been true from as far back as Adam. What would make us think God's method has changed?

By faith and by faith alone, one receives what Christ did for him on the cross.

Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt. Herbert Hoover

Newt Gingrich

Futurist Wolf as a Conservative Sheep

...In 1994, Gingrich described himself as "a conservative futurist." He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America's "founding parents," in which he said: "The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st century." He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that "served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced."

Gingrich recommended The Third Wave as essential reading to his colleagues when he became Speaker of the House...

Newt Gingrich, the Establishment's Conservative. New American, 12/7/10, p. 13.

On numerous occasions. Gingrich showed himself a friend to Clinton's military policies. with a flagrant disregard for the constitutional mandate that Congress alone may declare war.


The big news this time in our family.

With 201,000 miles on our 2000 Toyota Camry, the clutch finally gave out (the only major expense on it). After putting in the new clutch and breaks, late Friday evening, 5th of March, about 10 pm, we took it down our mountain to check the new clutch performance coming back up the mountain. (It is at least a 4 miles steep grade up "our" mountain from Moorefield.)

Getting ready for our turn-around exit, at about 60 mph and very dark, the Lord had a deer waiting to commit suicide, and we were the unlucky victims. (WV rates #2 after Michigan in deer-car encounters.) It came charging out of the dark, and I did not see it until it was about 5 ft from us. It was charging at full speed, eyes straight ahead (we can normally see the eyes, and slow down accordingly) from the median of the new four lane highway to nowhere, Corridor H. She ran straight into the driver's side headlight. destroying the front left quarter panel and hood. The car spun around, and going backwards, hit the right hand guard rail, and destroyed the left rear quarter panel. Rather than going over the mountainside, we slide backwards (facing traffic) down the guard rail along the left side of the car. I had pushed in the clutch and brake when I saw the deer, and when we stopped, the engine was still running. The right head light still worked, and no mechanical damage to the radiator, engine, steering, nor drive train. There was no glass breakage (deer are good about flying over the hood into the windshield), and since the deer hit the left front, the air bags did not deploy. But the left side body was destroyed.

A young man was following us, and he stopped to see if we were OK. He said that he had hit 3 deer with his pickup. A pickup can tolerate more than our small car. A local pastor said he hit three within three weeks at the same place as he drove to one of his churches. He watches over two churches.

We were able to carefully drive the car home, but it was totaled with over $7,000 damage. The car was in perfect shape, used no oil between 3-4,000 mile oil changes, new tires and new clutch, and got 33-38 mpg. Our insurance, State Farm, gave enough for the total to replace it with a 2002, 5 speed Camry. We found it over the web, and had been owned by a lady who bought it new, kept up oil changes and service. Its 145,000 miles were mostly highway miles, and it seems to be in perfect shape. The inside, including the engine compartment, looks new, but has a few scratches in the paint. She took very good care of it.

We warn everyone coming our way about the suicidal deer, and though this is our second encounter, this is the first to really do damage. I am fine, but Bettie is still experiencing a sore neck. She has had several doctor examinations, but no results yet.

When the snow started melting revealing small spots of grass, the deer started coming out of the deep woods to graze. On our way over a back road to check out a body shop, we counted over 36 deer in a very small patch of grass. The melting snow also revealed many miles of destroyed fences, including our old wooden fence.

Few back roads, even paved roads, in our area have guardrails, even though they hang on the sides of mountains. The Lord was certainly good to have us on a road with a guardrail.

I mentioned the high rate of car-deer encounters to our insurance agent, and she said they get about one car-deer encounter report a day.

Bettie is expecting a new grandchild any day now, and then another this summer, which will make 25.

Garden time is almost here, though we are about two weeks behind those down the mountain. The seedlings look good under the grow lights, and will look even better when fall gets here, loaded with produce, Lord willing.

** If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. James Madison

KJV Only

I realize the "KJV Only" crowd will have many harsh comments concerning the following, and may even request to be dropped from this "heretical" publication for pointing out the following, but facts are facts:

... King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication.

There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication.

First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart....First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage," (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James.

Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices":

1. Roman Catholicism.

2. Silence.

3. The Inquisition.

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous.

England wasn't much different From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices

1. The Anglican Church.

2. Silence.

3. The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and

quartered, or some other form of persuasion.

The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim...

(Complete Introduction available upon request.)

Admittedly, this writer is totally exasperated with the "Christians" who refuse to become involved against wicked worldly governors, and authors who justify that non-involvement. Our battle is very real against more than just spiritual principalities and powers.


Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and against the worldly governors, the princes of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness, which are in ye high places. Geneva

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. KJV

No wonder King James hated the Geneva, for it makes it clear that part of our spiritual warfare is against wicked physical and literal evil worldly governors. Christians now fail to realize that our warfare is just as much against the evil physical worldly governors as it is against wicked spiritual principalities, powers, princes of darkness and spiritual wickedness. The result has been that Christians see no responsibility to war against ungodly worldly governors, though those worldly governors are determined to destroy Christianity, particularly as the worldly governors control the education system. (BTW, I use the KJV.)

The end result is Obama, and a violently Pro-Death Congress, defined by the Democratic party, (Schlafly:

Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the ‘Pro-Life Democrat', pl usnw/DC74083 1)

See "Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason". I do not recommend the "Mother Jones" magazine, but check some various articles: "Econundrum: 12 Most Pesticide-Laden Fruits and Veggies". 2010/03/econundrum-12-most-contaminated-fruits-andveggies & "Premature Births Linked to Pesticides".

I found a copy in the dentist's office. Most of the articles were not worth the read.

** The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. James Madison

To your health

Our son and his wife (and seven children) live where they have access to fresh milk within hours of milking. They noticed that though the milk is fresh, farmers who feed grain with any mold in it, the milk will contain mold. Our daughter-in-law has a very unpleasant reaction to the mold that comes through the milk. On the other hand, when milk is produced with no grain, she has no problems. ($2 a gallon vs $3 a gallon, with maybe 1/3 cream.)

Indiana produces a large amount of corn. During harvest, the storage bins overflow, and they store many hundreds of rail cars worth of grain on the ground out in the weather. When grain is sold by the farmer, he will be docked for moisture. So the farmer does all he can to see that his grain is dry. Cargil handles such a huge amount of grain that they can mix the spoiled grain from the outside storage with the good grain, and still get top dollar. Hence, the mold and other contaminates make it into the food supply through the feed.

Answer to polluted milk–Pasteurization not only kills a large part of contaminates in the milk, but it kills any good that might have once been in the milk, so they "fortify" the finished product with chemicals. Obviously, the food industry does all it can to prevent real milk and whole food from reaching the consumer, for that hurts the "bottom line". Our food supply is killing us.

I feel sorry for those who are unable to grow their own food, or do not have access to real food.

** Let us never forget that the cultivation of the earth is the most important labor of man. When tillage begins, other arts follow. The farmers, therefore, are the founders of civilization. Daniel Webster


I am so tired of conservatives.

Conservatives have built up an industry to expose and discuss and decry all threats against liberty and every other problem spawned by big government. Unhappily, they never take any action that might solve those problems, other than uselessly writing to congressmen or voting Republican. After all, if the problems were solved, then no one would need -- the conservatives or their industry. It is a conservatism that conserves nothing, and never has, and doesn't intend to.

In the past few decades this feckless, toothless conservatism has taken the road first of radio talk show hosts and then of TV talking heads who, not much to anybody's surprise, talk. They are, after all, paid to talk, not to act. They talk, they stir people up, they draw out rage, but they never do anything. If anyone threatens actually to do something, they ridicule and blacken him.

A few days ago I got an email from someone urging me to read it because Obama is awful and "we are in danger of losing all our liberty." Wow, I wondered, where have you been for the last 80 -- no, make that 149 -- years? What were you watching during the years of Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, and yes, Ronald Reagan, etc., etc.? This poor unconscious person is the fruit of the conservative industry.


And please don't correct me by defending Ronald Reagan. Spending under his California governorship mushroomed to all time highs, and then he went to Washington and performed the same favour for the federal government. Before that, when the Liberty Amendment to abolish the income tax was gaining steam in the late 1950s, General Electric sent him around the country speaking with a plan that did nothing but spike the Liberty Amendment. Reagan was, quintessentially, both in career and in life, an actor, a man practiced at seeming to be what he was not, an outstanding example of the contradiction of the entire conservatism industry.


What are the talking heads and voices and conservative leaders? Mere Pied Pipers, leading the people away from any constructive action. Oh, they get people stirred up and enraged, but what do those folks do? They go home and hop on their computers and type until their keyboards are smoking, but that's all spit into a hurricane, full of sound and fury and accomplishing nothing. The "conservatives" have successfully diverted them into " virtual activism ," the illusion of purposeful, gainful activity that smothers the reality. Bingo: another citizen dead-ended.


Perhaps worst about the conservative industry is their pandering to anger. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, and the whole tribe of them reach for the worst and wildest part of human nature and squeeze. They have destroyed all hope of rational or reasoned political discussion or civil discourse. In their place they have substituted slogans, rudeness, and murderous hatred that demonizes and dehumanizes their opponents. Those they oppose may be morons indeed, even immoral cretins or embryonic tyrants, but they are still human beings. Whenever we forget that, whenever we abandon courtesy, civility, and manners, we can stop worrying about the barbarians taking over. We have already become them.

Whenever I say these things out loud in a speech, somebody always sidles up to me afterward and asks, "Do you mean to include X, too?" naming his favourite conservative guru. Inevitably I answer yes, but because the conservative industry has so thoroughly done its brainwashing work, they generally just shake their heads in disbelief and walk away. I might as well be speaking Albanian.

The issue today is no longer fiddling and fine tuning government action from a left-wing or right wing perspective. Rather, the issue has become, Will human liberty and self government survive? That reaches beyond a narrow liberal or conservative ideology to the deepest bedrock of political, social, and economic life. In our time we will either become slaves or restore freedom. But not unless we do something besides talk, and all those who lead people astray into talk and virtual activism are not the allies of liberty, but its enemies.

-- F. Sanders. Reprinted from The Moneychanger, P.O. Box 178, Westpoint, Tennessee 38486.

**The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. Thomas Jefferson


Some have said that the stimulus hasn't saved any jobs, but here is a case where at least one job was saved. According to an unnamed source, Oregon State University Athletic Director Bob DeCarolis was considering firing their basketball coach, Craig Robinson, after an 8-11 start (2-5 in the Pac 10 conference). When word of this reached Washington , Under Secretary of Education Martha Kanter was dispatched to Corvallis with $17 million in stimulus money for the university. The source now says that Craig Robinson's job is safe for this year.

For the record, Coach Robinson just happens to be Michelle Obama's brother.



Vineland map

NPR, Monday, August 5, 2002

Morning Edition, a 4 min article on the Leaf Erickson map. It was made in the 1400s. Carbon dating was to be used to prove or disprove the authenticity of the map, but the carbon dating said the map was not yet made. It set the date as 2045.

Thus carbon dating is a fraud.

The article title is "NPR : Vinland Map" and can be found at display.cfm?segID=147828


Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952)

IN the past, dear reader, there have been thousands who were just as confident that they had been genuinely saved and were truly trusting in the merits of the finished work of Christ to take them safely through to Heaven, as you may be. Nevertheless, they are now in the torments of Hell. Their confidence was a carnal one...They were too confident that their faith was a saving one to thoroughly, searchingly, frequently test it by the Scriptures, to discover whether or not it was bringing forth those fruits that are inseparable from the faith of God's elect. If they read an article like this, they proudly concluded that it belonged to someone else. So cocksure were they that they were born again so many years ago, they refused to heed the command of 2 Corinthians 13:5: "Prove your own selves." Now it is too late. They wasted their day of opportunity, and the "blackness of darkness" is their portion forever.

In view of this solemn and awful fact, the writer earnestly calls upon himself and each reader to get down before God and sincerely cry, "Search me, O God: reveal me to myself. If I am deceived, undeceive me ere it be eternally too late. Enable me to measure myself faithfully by Thy Word, so that I may discover whether or not my heart has been renewed, whether I have abandoned every course of self-will and truly surrendered to Thee; whether I have so repented that I hate all sin and fervently long to be free from its power, loathe myself and seek diligently to deny myself; whether my faith is that which overcomes the world (1Jo 5:4) or whether it be only a mere notional thing which produces no godly living; whether I am a fruitful branch of the vine or only a cumberer [that which clutters] of the ground; in short, whether I be a new creature in Christ or only a painted hypocrite." If I have an honest heart, then I am willing, yea anxious to face and know the real truth about myself.

Perhaps some readers are ready to say, "I already know the truth about myself. I believe what God's Word tells me: I am a sinner with no good thing dwelling in me. My only hope is in Christ." Yes, dear friend, but Christ saves His people from their sins. Christ sends His Holy Spirit into their hearts, so that they are radically changed from what they were previously. The Holy Spirit sheds abroad the love of God in the hearts of those He regenerates, and that love is manifested by a deep desire and sincere determination to please Him Who loves me. When Christ saves a soul, He saves not only from Hell, but from the power of sin. He delivers him from the dominion of Satan and from the love of the world. He delivers him from the fear of man, the lusts of the flesh, the love of self. True, He has not yet completed this blessed work. True, the sinful nature is not yet eradicated. But one who is saved has been delivered from the dominion of sin (Rom 6:14). Salvation is a supernatural thing that changes the heart, renews the will, transforms the life, so that it is evident to all around that a miracle of grace has been wrought...A faith that does not issue in godly living, in an obedient walk, in spiritual fruit, is not the faith of God's elect. O my reader, I beg you to diligently and faithfully examine yourself by the light of God's unerring Word. Claim not to be a child of Abraham, unless you do the works of Abraham (Joh 8:39).

What is apostasy? It is a making shipwreck of the faith (1Ti 1:19). It is the heart's departure from the living God (Heb 3:13). It is a returning to and being overcome by the world, after a previous escape from its pollutions through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2Pe 2:20). There are various steps that precede it. First, there is a looking back (Luk 9:62), like Lot's wife, who though she had outwardly left Sodom, yet her heart was still there. Second, there is a drawing back (Heb 10:38): the requirements of Christ are too exacting to any longer appeal to the heart. Third, there is a turning back (Joh 6:66): the path of godliness is too narrow to suit the lustings of the flesh. Fourth, there is a falling back, which is fatal: "That they might go and fall backward, and be broken" (Isa 28:13).

From Studies in the Scriptures, reprinted by Chapel Library. If you are not on Chapel Library's mailing list, go to and sign on.

A.W. Pink (1886-1952): Pastor, itinerate Bible teacher, author of Studies in the Scriptures and many books including his well-known The Sovereignty of God; born in Great Britain, immigrated to the U.S., and later returned to his homeland in 1934; born in Nottingham, England.

"Let us then be agreed of this notion of apostasy, which is evident: it is a falling off from the obedience that we owe to our rightful Lord."—Thomas Manton

** It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Thomas Jefferson

A Future Jewish Temple?

Matthew 24:15

By Thomas Williamson

The favorite proof-text for the common belief that there must be a future Jewish temple with animal sacrifices, presumably in Jerusalem on the current site of the Muslim Noble Sanctuary, is Matthew 24:15, which reads:

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) . . . "

There is no mention of a temple in this verse. To get to a "proof' of a future Jewish temple from this verse, we must make 2 assumptions: that the "holy place" cannot refer to anything other than the Temple, and that the Temple referred to is not Herod's temple which is what the Apostles were asking Christ about in Matthew 24:2-3, but rather another temple to be built thousands of years in their future, which the Apostles did not ask about and knew nothing about. Both of these assumptions are very highly questionable.

As we read on from verse 15, we see that the "abomination of desolation" was a sign or warning which was to trigger the flight of the Christians from Jerusalem, an event which took place during the Roman invasion of Judea in 67-70 AD. "Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day." -Matthew 24:1620.

The reference to avoiding a flight which would violate the ancient Jewish sabbath day regulations pinpoints this event as taking place before the final destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. No such restrictions on sabbath day travel are enforced upon the general population in modern-day Israel.

Even Scofield admits (Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1106) that the parallel passage in Luke 21:20-24, with its references to desolation, fleeing to the mountains, and woes to those who are with child or giving suck, describes the Roman invasion in 70 AD. To insist that the passage in Matthew predicts an entirely different event to take place 2000 years later is totally unnatural and absurd.

History records that Christians living in Jerusalem in 70 AD understood these evacuation instructions as applying to them, and that they all did flee for safety to the city of Pella. It is nonsensical to insist that Jesus intended this warning not for believers of His own time but for a remote distant generation at least 2000 years in the future.

"Holy Place" Does Not Necessarily Refer to the Temple

The sign that the disciples were told to watch for was an "abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place. This very strongly implies that the holy place here is not a reference to the interior of any temple, ancient or modern. The "holy of holies" beside the Temple was a secluded interior location which very few people could enter. Any abomination or activity of any kind taking place deep within the Temple would have not been visible to outsiders, and therefore would not have served as a warning to flee the city.

In traditional Jewish usage, the "holy place" would have referred to any place on the soil of Judea, which was considered sacred territory. The "abomination of desolation" would have been the visible presence of invading Roman troops with their heathen ensigns honoring false gods. This event, not some secret activity within the Temple, would have been the warning sign to Christians, to let them know that it was now time to "get out of Dodge."'

Notice carefully how the term "holy place" is used in 2 Maccabees 2:18: "As he promised in the law, will shortly have mercy upon us, and will gather us together from every land under heaven into the holy place." The "holy place" here must refer to a larger territory than the secret precincts of the Temple, since it would be impossible to gather millions of Jews "from every land under heaven" into the Temple. 2 Maccabees 1:7 refers to the "land" as holy, and 2 Maccabees 3:1 refers to the "city" as holy. It was not necessary to get inside the Temple in order to be on holy ground or in a "holy place."

"Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament," commenting on Matthew 24:15, says, "Others, and among them de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius (comp. Weiss on Mark), understand the words as referring to Palestine, especially to the neighborhood of Jerusalem (Schott, Wiesler), or to the Mount of Olives (Bengel), because it is supposed that it would have been too late to seek escape after the temple had been captured, and so the flight of the Christians to Pella took place as soon as the war began."

Another commentator, Lardner, says, "By standing in the holy place, or where it ought not, needs not to be understood the temple only, but Jerusalem also, and, any part of the land of Israel"

Church historian Philip Schaaf said, "The Romans planted their eagles on the shapeless ruins over against the eastern gate, offered their sacrifices to them, and proclaimed Titus Imperator, with the greatest acclamation of joy. Thus was fulfilled the prophecy concerning the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place." (Vol. 1, pp. 397398)

Matthew Poole's commentary says, "I take theirs to be the best who understand ‘the abomination of desolation' to be meant of the Roman armies, which being made up of idolatrous soldiers, and having with them many abominable images, are therefore called ‘the abomination;' these words, ‘of desolation,' are added, because they were to make Jerusalem desolate; .. . When, saith our Lord, you shall see the abominable armies ‘stand in the holy place,' that is, upon the holy ground (as all Judea was), `whoso readeth' those prophecies of the prophet Daniel, ‘let him understand,' that as through the righteous judgment of God he once suffered the holy place to be polluted by the abominable armies of Antiochus, which he foretold, so he will again suffer the holy place to be polluted by the abominable armies of the Romans, wh o shall make the holy place desolate." Please note that Poole regards "all Judea," not just the inside of the Temple, as being the "holy place."

Matthew Henry agrees that the "holy place" may refer to the entire land, not just the Temple: "Jerusalem was the holy city, Canaan the holy land, the Mount Moriah, which lay about Jerusalem, for its nearness to the temple was, they thought, in a particular manner holy ground; on the country lying round about Jerusalem the Roman army was encamped, that was the abomination that made desolate."

Adam Clarke joins the crowd here - he sees this passage as being fulfilled already by the Romans, and the "holy place" as a reference to the land, not just the city: "The Roman army is therefore fitly called the `abomination,' and the ‘abomination which maketh desolate,' as it was to desolate and lay waste Jerusalem: and this army besieging Jerusalem, is called by St. Mark 13:14, `standing where it ought not,' that is, as in the text here, ‘the holy place;' as not only the city, but a considerable compass of around about it was deemed ‘holy,' and consequently no profane persons should stand on it."

John Wesley agrees: "Daniel's term is ‘the abomination that maketh desolate,' that is, the standards of the desolating legions, on which they bear the abominable images of their idols. ‘Standing in the holy place' - Not only the temple and the mountain on which it stood, but the whole city of Jerusalem, and several furlongs of land round about it, were accounted holy; particularly the mountain on which our Lord now sat, and on which the Romans afterward planted their ensigns."

By now it should be evident that we do not need any kind of Jewish temple to fulfill Matthew 24:15. We do not even need to get inside Herod's temple which was standing when the prophecy was given, and we certainly do not need a future Jewish temple to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus said would be fulfilled during the lifetime of the generation of people who were living in 33 AD (Matthew 24:34).

Ancient, Modern Commentators Agree -Matthew 24:15 Already Fulfilled by the Romans

Ancient church fathers regarded Matthew 24:15 as having already been fulfilled, by the entrance and presence of the Roman armies into the area around Jerusalem (not necessarily inside the Temple).

John Chrysostom said, "For this it seems to me that the abomination of desolation means the army by which the holy city of Jerusalem was made desolate."

Augustine said, "Luke to show that the abomination spoken of by Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: ‘And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.'"

Eusebius Pamphylius, 325 AD, said, "How at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire - all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus."

Many modem commentators agree that Matthew 24:15 was fulfilled by the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem in 67-70 AD.

John Gill says, "Now our Lord observes, that when they should see the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem, with their ensigns flying, and these abominations on them, they might conclude its desolation was near at hand."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon says, "This portion of our Saviour's words appears to relate solely to the destruction of Jerusalem. As soon as Christ's disciples saw ‘the abomination of desolation,' that is, the Roman ensigns, with their idolatries, ‘stand in the holy place,' they knew that the time for their escape had arrived; and they did flee to the mountains."

Barnes' commentary says, "This is a Hebrew expression, meaning an abominable or hateful destroyer. The Gentiles were all held in abomination by the Jews, Acts 10:28. The abomination of desolation means the Roman army, and is so explained by Luke 21:20. The Roman army is further called the abomination on account of the images of the emperor, and the eagles, carried in front of the legions, and regarded by the Romans with divine honors."

G.C. Berkouwer says, "When the desolating sacrilege comes, Christ proclaims, ‘then let them who are in Judaea flee to the mountains.' . . . What Daniel says is applied to the imminent destruction of the temple in Jerusalem." ("The Return of Christ," pp. 275-276)

John Albert Bengel says, "The abomination of profanation was followed by the abomination of desolation. Such is the name given to the Roman army, gathered from all nation; whose military standards the Jews held in abomination as idols, since the Romans attributed divinity to them."

Edersheim says, "Our Lord takes the well-known Biblical expression in the general sense in which the Jews took it, that the heathen power (Rome, the abominable)_ would bring desolation - lay the city and Temple waste." ("Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," p. 449)

E.B. Elliott says, "the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place at Jerusalem (a prophecy which doubtless had reference to the time of the consummated iniquity of the Christ-rejecting Jerusalem, and of the Roman besieging army with its idolatrous stands gathering into the sacred precincts of the Jewish city).. .."

James Farqhuarson says, "Christ expressly names it (the abomination of desolation) as one of the previous signs, whereby those whom He then addressed would become aware of the immediate approach of that destruction of Jerusalem which He Himself foretold, and which, He said, would occur before the generation contemporary with Himself on earth passed away, Matthew 24:34."

Theodore Robinson says, "The appalling horror spoken of by the prophet Daniel shall stand erect in the holy place, apparently a reference to the presence of Roman armies round Jerusalem, and so rightly interpreted by Luke."

B.H. Carroll saw this passage as fulfilled by the ancient Romans: "When ye shall see the abomination which makes desolation spoken of by Daniel, the prophet, set up where it ought not to be, and see Jerusalem compassed with armies, that is the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem. The greatest desolation ever wrought in the world on a people, was made under that standard and by the Roman power. There, it was the abomination that maketh desolate." ("An Introduction of the English Bible," pp. 263-264)

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say, "That the abomination of desolation here alluded to was intended to point to the Roman ensigns, as the symbols of an idolatrous, and so unclean Pagan power, may be gathered by comparing what Luke says in the corresponding verse (21:20); and the commentators are agreed on it."

Smith's Bible Dictionary defines "Abomination of Desolation, mentioned by our Saviour, Matthew 24:15, as a sign of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, with reference to Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11. The prophecy referred ultimately to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and consequently the abomination must describe some occurrence connected with that event. . . . Most people refer it to the standards or banners of the Roman army."

Former Moody Bible Institute professors C. Marvin Pate and Calvin Haines agree that Matthew 24:15 was fulfilled by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as chronicled by Josephus: "For Josephus, the destruction of Jerusalem was beyond comparison.. .. Jesus' prophecy about the city had come true (Matthew 24:15)." ("Doomsday Delusions - What's Wrong With Predictions About the End of the World," p. 46)

We are Not Commanded to Help Jews Build a Temple With Animal Sacrifices

I realize that many readers of this article will reject the conclusion that Matthew 24:15 refers to events that took place at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans more than 1900 years ago. Some will insist that it refers to events to take place in a future Jewish temple with animal sacrifices in Jerusalem, even though this verse makes no mention of a temple.

They will insist that this temple must be built on the site now occupied by the Mosque of Omar - no other location will do. They will insist that it is all going to happen in the near future, probably in our lifetime. They will insist that there must be another massive slaughter of the Jews, greater than that which took place in 70 AD, in conjunction with the building of this future temple.

They cannot pinpoint any of these prophecy beliefs in the Bible, but they are sure it will happen, based on something they saw in a sensational prophecy video or read in the Left Behind novels. (Josephus says more than 1,000,000 Jews were killed in 70 AD, but the prophecy gurus say that was not a big enough massacre to fulfill their version of prophecy, so the Jews will have to undergo "dela vu all over again" just to make sure. They will studiously ignore the statements of Jesus in Matthew 23:36 and Luke 21:22 that all these judgments were to fall on the generation of Jews then living in the First Century AD, not some hapless generation of Jews in the far distant future - which, by the way, eliminates any possibility of a "double fulfillment" or "near and far fulfillment" of this prophecy).

Never mind that this belief that there must be a future mass slaughter of Jews is the shame and disgrace of evangelical Christianity, which exposes us to the scorn and contempt of Jewish, Muslim, Catholic and mainline Protestant critics and journalists worldwide.

All of this notwithstanding, we will not all agree as to whether the prophecy of the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15 is in the past or in the future. But I hope we can agree on one thing, that it is not our duty as Christians to try to make this prophecy come true.

Specifically, we are nowhere instructed in the Bible to try to bring about the construction of a Jewish temple for animal sacrifices in Jerusalem. In fact, the epistle to the Hebrews strictly forbids us to take part in, or encourage, any such return to the ancient system of animal sacrifices, which would be regarded as a rejection of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross for us, and an act of unforgivable apostasy.

Regardless of our beliefs about prophecy, it is not our job as Christians to aid or abet the construction of any Jewish place of worship, any more than it is our duty to help construct Hindu temples or Muslim mosques. We have a duty to promote and propagate only one religion, the Christian religion, so let's focus like a laser beam on that and only that, and let all other religions take care of their own places of worship.

For those over 50

A Computer was something on TV

from a science fiction show of note,

A Window was something you hated to clean

And Ram was the father of a goat. Meg was the name of my girlfriend

And Gig was a job for the nights, Now they all mean different things And that really Mega Bytes.

An Application was for employment,

A Program was a TV show,

A Cursor used profanity,

A Keyboard was a piano.

Memory was something that you lost with age,

A CD was a bank account.

Compress was something you did to the garbage

Not something you did to a file

And if you Unzipped anything in public

You'd be in jail for a while.

Log On was adding wood to the fire

Hard Drive was a long trip on the road A Mouse pad was where a mouse lived

And a Backup happened to your commode. Cut's what you did with a pocket knife,

Paste you did with glue, A Web was a spider's home

And a Virus was the flu.

Maybe I should stick to my pad and paper,

And the Memory in my head,

I hear nobody's been killed in a Computer crash . . . But when it happens they wish they were dead

Mercy, restitution and justice

Matthew 5:7 & 38-42.

Safety Is Issue as Budget Cuts Free Prisoners

By Monica Davey

In the rush to save money in grim budgetary times, states nationwide have trimmed their prison populations by expanding parole programs and early releases. But the result — more convicted felons on the streets, not behind bars — has unleashed a backlash, and state officials now find themselves trying to maneuver between saving money and maintaining the public's sense of safety.

In February, lawmakers in Oregon temporarily suspended a program they had expanded last year to let prisoners, for good behavior, shorten their sentences (and to save $6 million) after an anticrime group aired radio advertisements portraying the outcomes in alarming tones. "A woman's asleep in her own apartment," a narrator said. "Suddenly, she's attacked by a registered sex offender and convicted burglar."

In Illinois, Gov. Patrick J. Quinn, a Democrat, described as "a big mistake" an early release program that sent some convicts who had committed violent crimes home from prison in a matter of weeks. Of more than 1,700 prisoners released over three months, more than 50 were soon accused of new violations.

An early release program in Colorado meant to save $19 million has scaled back its ambitions by $14 million after officials found far fewer prisoners than anticipated to be wise release risks. In more than five months, only 264 prisoners were released, though the program was designed to shrink the prison population by 2,600 over two years....

(New York Times, 3/4/10.

3/22, Monday we heard a news report that proclaimed the fact that there are fewer incarcerated now than there has been in some years. They did not mention that a reason is because of the above.

Modern Prisons

Prisons as a place of "punishment" are unknown in the Word of God. The only prison in Scripture was a "ward" where the lawbreaker was kept until just sentence could be determined. Prisons as a place of "punishment" were identified only with pagan societies. In Genesis 29:30, Joseph was put in prison.

In Numbers 15:32-36, the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath was put in ward until it was determined what to do with him. In Luke 12:58, the Lord warns us to make peace with our enemies, or prison awaits us.

Scripture had no prisons for the thief. He had to make restitution, or work off his debt. The Lord's "punishment" always fit the crime, death or restitution.


* Destroy the families.

* Cost vast sums of money, as prison makes the innocent a double victim–the lawbreaker robs the victim of his wealth, and then the state robs the victim of his wealth to support a non-working system.

* Assume that man is basically good, and even the worst offender has an inner light that is capable of self-reformation.

Origin of Prisons

In Britain and colonial America, the number of death penalty laws grew until a staggering two-hundred and twenty-two crimes were punishable by death. This growth was caused by a gross distortion of what God had classed as capital offenses. However, the Enlightenment movement along with a religious sect known as the Quakers set the stage for a new trend. For example, as early as 1682, William Penn, a pacifist leader among the Quakers and the founder of Pennsylvania, issued the Great Act wherein capital crimes under his jurisdiction were reduced to only two: murder and treason. As a result, adultery was no longer punished by death in Pennsylvania, but rather by a whipping and a one-year prison sentence for the first offense, and the second offense brought life imprisonment. Instead of overhauling the system of justice, Penn simply distorted the view of capital punishment in the opposite direction, and in the place where legitimate capital sentences should have been, he proposed that men be sentenced to prison. ( Documents/imprisonment.htm)

Prisoners were forced to pay for their own incarceration. They became a source of forced, or slave labor. Appalled by prison conditions in Europe, a man named John Howard (1726-1790) became an advocate for better prison conditions.

John Howard made a lasting impact on prison life. In fact, various groups continue to monitor prison conditions in honor of his name today. However, Howard failed to realize that without teaching the broader counsel of God regarding criminal justice, his noble efforts would eventually make prisons a charming alternative to judges and change prisons from mostly holding prisoners awaiting trial to places where prisoners serve long-term sentences of confinement. Howard also failed to consider the psychological torment of extended imprisonment. Historian and volunteer director of "The John Howard Society of Canada" summed up the affects of Howard's movement as follows:

"Howard's ideal prison is comparable to a hygienic and well-run zoo and it illustrates the limitations of his thinking. Only physical suffering aroused his sympathy. His age lacked the knowledge to appreciate the psychological damage of incarceration. More concerned with people than with ideas, at no time did he attempt to deal with the cause of crime. Although opposed to torture, ... he did not foresee today's use of imprisonment for long-term sentences." ... (Ibid.)

A devout Quaker active in preaching and writing her own sermons, Elizabeth Fry (1780 -1845) adopted Howard's ideas and coupled them with concepts of mankind being fundamentally good, that criminal behavior is a result of negative environmental factors, and that isolation from bad influences would be rehabilitative. Elizabeth's teachings were appealing to left-wing intellectuals who had already embraced the secular philosophy of the "New Enlightenment." As such, Elizabeth Fry, along with other female Quakers, greatly influenced both America and Europe in how the role of prisons were viewed. Elizabeth's biographer, Janet Whitney, candidly wrote that Fry was "the first woman other than a queen to be called into the councils of the government in an official manner to advise on matters of public concern." And what was the emphasis that Elizabeth's Quaker-based ideology heralded? It was social rehabilitation based upon nonviolent mentoring and self-reflection. To Elizabeth Fry and her cohorts, confinement was something done for the criminal, not to him.

Quaker abhorrence to the death penalty gained acceptance in the criminal justice community as prisons lost their ghastly image of being foul despotic squalors. For example, the 1796 New York legislature abolished corporal punishment, reduced the number of capital offenses from thirteen to two and authorized construction of the state's first penitentiary. Fifty years later, Michigan became the first English speaking government in the world to abolish the death penalty (Although one crime, treason, remained on the books, it was never used). Then, in 1852, a movement led by Unitarians, Universalists, and Quakers completely abolished any form of death penalty in Rhode Island. Again, this shift was mostly due to religious influence coupled with the allure of sanitized prisons as possible housing for long-term prisoners [who were believed to be basically good, ed].

The probation system has its roots in Alexander Maconochi (1787-1890), and was developed by several more people into what we have today. It went from volunteers, to using tax supported officers. Paroles were introduced by a Michigan penologist, Zebulon Reed Brockway (1827-1920). Probation is in lieu of prison, and parole is a ticket to leave prison. The two can be combined. It was the expenses of the War of Northern Aggression that pressured the government to use the probation and parole systems. They cost far less than incarceration. The unrestrained government spending of our day has motivated the same thing: probation and parole.

By now, a repetitive pattern in the recent history of criminal justice should be apparent to the reader. First, a criminal justice system strays from God's original design and distorts aspects that God had ordained. Second, someone clothed in an aura of religiosity heralding good will toward men takes exception to some criminal sentence, such as capital punishment, and blames its misuse on a corrupt, unfair, or unreasonable criminal justice system. Third, their claim against the system is disingenuous. They never seek to dismantle the criminal justice system and replace it with one in tune with God's Word, thus their real qualm is not with the system. Fourth, their suggestion generally strays further away from godly punishment, only to add a form of justice of which they are either the creator or prophet. Fifth, they may justify themselves by pointing to biblical passages that they do not understand to make God's way appear unreasonable. For example, someone may decry a convict's death sentence by pointing to symbolic law, such as an Old Testament Israelite death penalty for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or by misrepresenting the New Testament as being against all capital punishment. Their real agenda, however, is to replace capital punishment with a manmade solution, not fix the justice system. Read current newspaper articles on criminal justice and you will eventually run across this five-step pattern of offering prison, probation, parole, or other novel ideas, such as community registration of certain types of criminals. The result shifts punishment from the backs of convicted criminals and places it upon the backs of innocent taxpayers, straddling them to pay for the elaborate schemes of a so-called "correctional system." (Ibid.)

Howard's ideal prison has evolved into what we have today with supplied and expensive room, board, dental and medical care.

If the Old Testament law of the Lord were followed, as reiterated by our Lord in Matthew chapters 5-7, the prisoner and prison budget problems would be solved, as well as the other problems plaguing fallen men. Because His law has been completely abandoned or grossly misused, western society is dissolving before our very eyes.

God's law of mercy as stated in Matthew 5:7, and explained in 5:38-42, would solve the prison problem. As the law of mercy, v. 7, has been separated by Christians from its Godly application of justice in vv. 38-42, injustice prevails, along with ever increasing prison costs.

Godly Justice has been replaced today with "what is fair" according to what seems right to fallen men, but there is death in that pot. Proverbs 14:12, 16:25, 2 Kings 4:40. Only the Law of the Lord can define what is just or unjust.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Righteous judgment is defined by God's word, not by sentimental feelings.

Contrary to popular belief, the passage in Matthew 5 does not prohibit restitution, nor does it call for a Penal system such as we have today, which claims the State is the injured party. Nor does Matthew 5 spare the guilty party with sentimental, unBiblical love.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

It is the responsibility of the Civil authority to make the law a terror to the evil person and a blessing to the just person. The Magistrate was never ordained of the Lord to pamper the degenerate, nor convert and reform the wicked. Such things are the responsibility of the preacher of the gospel of peace. Only the law of the Lord can convert and reform the wicked:

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

The civil magistrate is to execute Godly vengeance against the wicked. When he ceases to become a terror to evil, evil will become a terror to society.

Luke 18:2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

Man fails to enforce the law of the Lord because he fears not God.

The reason the civil magistrate has replaced justice with sentimental love is because the pulpits have done the same. The fountain-head of today's lawlessness is in the pulpits of so called "Bible Believing" churches. God's restraint against sin has been removed from the preaching of His word; therefore, the masses of church-goers no longer fear God.

God is now seen as a great, loving, grandfatherly type person in heaven, Who is controlled by sentimental love. Therefore, He no longer demands justice and restitution. The sad results are seen in a society which offers no justice, and a church which fears not God nor any eternal retribution against sin.

The pulpits, like the unjust judge, fear not God and His law. They do regard the people who pay their salaries, so they corrupt the word of God to please their hearers.

Today we have the Christian corruption of justice, and the results are evident in our corrupt judicial system.

We mentioned that the 7 beatitudes were illustrated and expanded on in the Lord's message, and the eye for eye, and tooth for tooth expands on or illustrates godly mercy, 5:7. It illustrates God's mercy toward the godly in providing His just reward toward the wicked, which protects the godly.

Mercy can only be mercy when it is shown according to the word of God, and God's mercy demands restitution, including capital punishment. His word defines just restitution. No just restitution is ungodliness, not mercy.

Restitution is the very central theme of God's law. Without this basic idea of restitution, there is no need for a Sinless Substitute. And as we have seen God's requirement of restitution ignored, we have seen terrible corruptions; not only in the judicial system, but in the plan of salvation. The stress of the absolute necessity for the substitutionary death of Christ is now missing in the humanist gospel.

Christian Humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. (New World Encyclopedia)

Most pulpits today preach "Christian Humanism".

Our Lord's words, eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, are found three times in the Law of Moses, Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:19 & Deuteronomy 19:19.

Matthew 5:38-42, does not offer a higher standard of spirituality than Moses. Nor is He offering more mercy than did Moses. He is not adding to or removing from the already given word of God.

Rather, in all of this sermon, He is dealing with a misuse of the law of Moses. What our Lord is dealing with here is personal retaliation against those who have wronged us, Getting even.

He is preaching a strong sermon against the false teachings of His day which found in the law of Moses justification to seek personal vengeance: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The false teachers, Pharisees, were in His audience. Their hostility against Him for telling the truth about their false teaching lead to His death.

The Commandments were given in Exodus 20. In chapter 21, we have the first use of eye for an eye, as the Lord starts expanding on the law and applying it to life.

V. 1, notice how this chapter opens: Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. Judgments is another name for judicial laws. The judgments recorded here in Exodus 21 are the laws that the magistrates were commanded to use when trying a criminal. The private individual was not permitted to place these laws into force. The individual was not free to avenge his own wrongs; rather, the law was placed in the hands of public administrators. (Deuteronomy 19:18 & 21.)


First: Leviticus 24:19 Also if a man cause any blemish in his neighbor: as he hath done, so shall it be done to him. 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: such a blemish as he hath made in any, such shall be repaid to him.

The law requires equal payment for damage done. In other words, the punishment fits the crime - not more nor less.

Second: Exodus 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is surrounded by protection for those under authority—vv. 20-22 protects the servant and the unborn child. Vv. 26ff., protects the servant from an abusive master. Over and over, we see that the law is given to protect the innocent.

V. 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Note that the law does not forbid smiting the servant; rather, it required restitution be made if the smiting went too far. The Lord, knowing sinful nature, assumed that there would be servants who would only work if there was a fear of some kind of physical punishment if they did not work.

Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.

(The servant in Exodus 21 was probably a bond servant, working off a debt. He would be inclined to do the minimum.)

Servant–master owns the labor.

Slave–master owns the body as well as the labor.

If the master of the servant, for whatever reason (fit of rage, brutality) maimed the servant, the master had to make it right. Thus, no matter what position one held in society, he was held responsible before God and man for his actions.

Furthermore, the Law of the Lord protected both the servant and the master. The judge could not go overboard in a fit of weak-hearted, sentimental passion toward the servant and give the servant more than equal to the damage done to the servant.

Today there is a discussion taking place over "punitive damages". That is, massive payments that go far beyond any just restitution, particularly if the "guilty" party has deep pockets, e.g., coffee was too hot!

Third: Exodus 21:28-36, not only does God's law hold sin in check, it also holds carelessness in check. Carelessness is controlled by the law of restitution. Vv. 29, 30, the owner had been warned about his bad animal, but he did not keep it confined and it killed someone. The owner was to be killed. The guilt of the death was on the owner. His death could not be avenged by a family member. He had been warned.

On the other hand, maybe the death was accidental (carelessness on the owner's part), so provision was made; the owner could pay a ransom, and he would not have to die. V. 22, the judges determined the amount of restitution, not the injured party.

Vv. 33-36, deals further with Preventative Law.

Notice here that there was no punishment determined upon the owner of a house, ox or a pit until someone was injured.

Deuteronomy 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

There was no one assigned by the civil authority to go around looking for open pits, unattended animals, nor unprotected roofs. The civil magistrate had no power to do anything until someone was injured.

Of course, today we see humanistic law forbidding anything which might injure someone (or worse yet, which might injure the state), even perceived thoughts and motives, "Hate Crimes". Seat belts, speed limits, to name only a few. OSHA goes around sticking its nose everywhere. The FDA, that is to protect our food supply, has become a con-game, easily bought off by big companies, such as Monsanto. See the movie "Food Inc".

[Any scientist who tells you that they know that GMOs are safe and not to worry about it, is either ignorant of the history of science or is deliberately lying. Nobody know what the long-term effect will be. Geneticist, David Suzuki.]

Oppressive laws passed to protect us from anything that might present a possibility of injury give the state power to snoop everywhere, yet the laws do not protect us from unsafe food.

God's answer, restitution, is the only thing that will work, and provide freedom from an oppressive state. God defines justice as requiring an eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth.

Fourth: Deuteronomy 19:19, 20, provides just restitution for the benefit of society in general. The law, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, protected the peaceful members of society from the violent members of society. The law protected the weak from the evil intentions of the strong.

V. 20, the fear of just and swift punishment will deter those inclined toward violence. Far from the law requiring eye for eye being harsh and unloving, this law was loving, just, merciful and beneficial. Through just restitution, the innocent is protected, and justice is provided for the guilty. It is the only law which will put away evil from a society.

Finishing this section, Matthew 5:38-48.

As with the other beatitudes, the Lord's words here in vv. 38, 39, must be understood in their context. Israel was a captive nation under Rome. They had a large amount of self-rule, but were by no means autonomous.

Exodus chapters 21 & 22 spoke to the ones who were about to establish their nation and be in authority, establishing laws and enforcement of those laws.

Matthew chapter 5 speaks to those who were under authority to a foreign power, with very little actual control over making the laws of the land. Our Lord speaks to individuals, telling them how to respond when they are under oppressive authority (turn the other cheek).

Note the context:

Matthew 5:11, 12, those addressed here by the Lord are going to be persecuted for the Lord's sake; they will be falsely accused and reviled. The source of persecution would be from the same ones who persecuted the prophets, the Jewish religious leaders. (Cf. Matthew 23:29-39.)

The required restitution must be made before any peace with man or God can be obtained, vv. 23, 24. Christ tells His hearers to agree quickly with someone they might have a conflict with because there is a chance that person might drag them into court, vv. 25, 26. But it is not a court system of justice. Rather there will be corrupt responsibility and no proper restitution. Therefore, they will not find justice, but jail.

Vv. 38-42, was spoken to those under authority. It prevented seeking an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth against the ones in authority who are persecuting them for their stand for Christ, v. 10.

Matthew 5 is also given against the background of the Pharisees and all they stood for and their corruption of the law. All of the blessings given by our Lord were in stark contrast with what these corrupt teachers were saying.

Setting the Lord's words of v. 39, apart from persecution for righteousness sake strips the law of its meaning, contrary to His words of v. 17.

Humanistic law attempts to prohibit any dangerous situation from arising (speed limit, 65). This can only lead to tremendously oppressive and restrictive laws, as well as large armies of police to inspect every area of society, every roof, every hole in the ground and every domestic animal–with the newly developed implanted computer chip. (Provides jobs and security for untold multitudes of people, at "tax payer" expense.)

On the other hand, Biblical law establishes basic principles to build on. It is based upon responsibility and restitution for the damage done. If my negligence and irresponsibility in any area causes harm to man or beast, I must be held responsible to make restitution, even to life for life. (Reduces government to a very limited role.)

The removal of Biblical law is drowning us under an ocean of laws and ‘law enforcement officials.' Why? Because it takes an ocean of laws to restrict every unsafe and stupid practice and animal. (Who defines unsafe? Is the same practice unsafe for everyone? Are there enough laws to protect the idiot from himself, or to protect us from every idiot?)

China has an effective solution to the drug problem: Capital punishment for the seller. Enforced a few times, and the problem will be controlled.

Obviously, the goal of civil government today is not to bring crime under control, but to increase control over every aspect of life and thought.

There is another devastating result when humanism removes this principle of restitution from the law of God (Exodus 21:23-25). If, as the antichrist theologians say, just restitution is no longer required under the new covenant, then you have no need for a Sinless Substitute to make restitution in place of the sinner before the Holy Father in heaven. I do not know what kind of a religion this leaves, but it is not Christianity. (Galatians 1:6.)

In other words, all of God's law, including Salvation, is based upon the law of justice: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Without this just law, a gospel (which is no gospel) can be presented which falsely offers Salvation based upon, "Asking or accepting jesus into your heart and life, and trusting him to do that," or, "Turning your life over to the lord," or, "Committing you life to Christ," or any of many false teachings along this line. There is death in that pot to all who refuse to avoid it.

Salvation is impossible unless the sinner is slain by the law of God, Romans 7:7-13.

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? God forbid. Nay, I knew not sin, but by the Law: for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not lust. 8 But sin took an occasion by ye commandment, and wrought in me all manner of concupiscence: for without the Law sin is dead. 9 For I once was alive, without the law: but when the commandment came, sin revived, 10 But I died: and the same commandment which was ordained unto life, was found to be unto me unto death. 11 For sin took occasion by the commandment, and deceived me, and thereby slew me. 12 Wherefore the Law is holy, and that commandment is holy, and just, and good. 13 Was that then which is good, made death unto me? God forbid: but sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me by that which is good, that sin might be out of measure sinful by the commandment.

How can the need of a Sinless Sacrifice to pay the penalty for the sinner be taught, if there is no teaching and understanding of the requirement of restitution?


1) Although we are forbidden private vengeance, or taking the law into our own hands, this law says that we should insist upon restitution. However, the modern state has taken over as the offended party, though the sin was against the individual. Restitution is claimed by the state, while the victim is ignored.

2) people must be forced to see that all their actions have consequences. Especially our children must realize that their actions have results: eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

When this law is removed from the family and the church, the fear of God will be lost in society also.

We have a friend who is a State Police patrolman. He had to take a "child" call to a Moorefield WV school. It was over an 8 year old who would not get in his mother's car to go home. He had fought and kicked the teacher and principle, and was choking his mother as she tried to put him in the car. There is no fear of God in the family, which translates into no fear of any authority in the family.

3) Restitution means that someone must pay for our sins. Either we will, or Christ will. Which will it be?

The only genuine mercy is doing things God's way. Sin and carelessness must be paid for.


The Dept of Defense briefed the president this morning.

They told President Obama that 2 Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq .

To everyone's surprise, he collapsed onto his desk, head in his hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.

Finally, he composed himself and asked, ‘Just how many is a brazilian?'

This is not surprising, since he obviously has no understanding of billion or trillion either.


The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

"The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

— Author Unknown

Death of a City

To understand what is going to happen to America's health care delivery system, we must first understand what has happened to Detroit.

Detroit is dying. Yes, I know that there are lots of books on "The Death of. . . ." That word sells books. But Detroit really is dying. It is the first metropolis in the United States to be facing extinction. We have never seen anything like this in American history. It is happening under our noses, but the media refuse to discuss it. To do so would be politically incorrect. Two factors tell us that Detroit is dying. The first is the departure of 900,000 people – over half the city's population – since 1950. It peaked at 1.8 million in 1950. It is down to about 900,000 today.

In 1994, the median sales price of a house in Detroit was about $41,000. The housing bubble pushed it up to about $98,000 in 2003. In March 2009, the price was $13,600. Today, the price is $7,000. Check the price chart.

There has never been a collapse of residential real estate values of this magnitude in peacetime history, anywhere. Detroit is dying.

We are unfamiliar with anything like this. The media are silent. The Powers That Be are not interested in reporting on this, because readers might ask the obvious question: "How did this happen?" Obvious questions tend to lead to obvious answers.

Detroit has been killed by flight out of the city. The 2008 Clint Eastwood movie, Gran Torino dealt with this problem. Eastwood plays an 80-something Korean War veteran who will not leave the neighborhood. His children keep bugging him to sell and move into a retirement home. He will not hear of it. He is alienated from them and from his immigrant neighbors: Hmong refugees from South Vietnam. The Hmong have trouble with the Blacks. Every group is essentially trapped in a neighborhood, with the gangs running the show.

There is no surge of buyers to take advantage of fabulously low prices in Detroit. Can you imagine buying a home for cash for $13,600 in 2009 – a house that had sold for $98,000 six years earlier – and losing half your money? It's incredible.

The Wall Street Journal recently ran one of the most creative stories I have seen in years. The journalist told the story of the history of a 5-bedroom home in Detroit, from the land purchase to its recent sale. It was built by one of the most influential man you have never heard of, Clarence Avery. Avery was on the Ford Motor Company team that conceived of implementing an assembly line for Ford's factory. He copied the idea from a hog-slaughtering operation.

His home was a very nice home for the time. The journalist located his daughter, now age 91. She said that she always thought the home was the best home she ever lived in.

As recently as 2005, the home sold for $250,000. It was purchased by a woman who was loaned $200,000 to buy it. It was financed by a subprime loan. The asking price was $189,000. Where the other $61,000 went, the woman has no idea. She defaulted.

The deteriorating house was bought by a Christian organization that is renovating it. The house sold for $10,000.

This is simply inconceivable to anyone who is unfamiliar with Detroit since 2005. Nothing like this has ever happened. How can we conceive of a lender lending $200,000 to a woman to buy a $250,000 home offered at $189,000? How can we conceive of a fall in price from $250,000 to $10,000?

Dr. Gary North


Improve our species: Go play in traffic

The following missive, by Lawrence A. Bullis of Phoenix to The Arizona Republic, was reprinted in Harper's:

"Every day some new do-gooder is trying to save us from ourselves. WE have so many laws and safety commissions to ensure our safety that it seems nearly impossible to have an accident. The problem is that we need accidents, and lots of them.

"Danger is nature's way of eliminating stupid people. Without safety, stupid people die in accidents... "With safety, however well-intentioned it may be, we are devolving into half-witted mutants, because idiots, who by all rights should be dead, are spared from their rightful early graves and are free to breed even more imbeciles.

"Let's do away with safety and improve our species. Take up smoking. Jaywalk. Play with blasting caps. Swim right after a big meal. Stick something small in your ear. Take your choice of dangerous activity and do it with gusto. Future generations will thank you."

*** U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. ...

We knew confiscation was coming. If signed by Obama, the treaty under consideration places the US under international gun laws.

*** The big news 3/28/10 was the arrested by the FBI who were linked to a "Christian militia group." (This group was preparing to fight along besied Jesus when he returns.) seven-arrested-in-FBI-raids-linked-to-Christian-militiagroup=

We often hear of radical Muslim training camps here in the US training for a "Jihad against America" undisturbed. See "Jihad in America:, in 6 parts, and "Terrorist Training Camps Inside USA, on

"Big Sis" ignores the Muslim's stated goal of overthrowing the US, while listing genuine patriots who have done nothing, and who want to defend the constitution as radicals and a threat to America. Remember Waco and Rubby Ridge. What is wrong here??