It's Friday, but Sunday's coming!!!

This classic message, originally preached by Dr. S.M. Lockridge:

It’s Friday
Jesus is praying
Peter’s a sleeping
Judas is betraying
But Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
Pilate’s struggling
The council is conspiring
The crowd is vilifying
They don’t even know
That Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
The disciples are running
Like sheep without a shepherd
Mary’s crying
Peter is denying
But they don’t know
That Sunday’s a comin’

It’s Friday
The Romans beat my Jesus
They robe him in scarlet
They crown him with thorns
But they don’t know
That Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
See Jesus walking to Calvary
His blood dripping
His body stumbling
And his spirit’s burdened
But you see, it’s only Friday
Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
The world’s winning
People are sinning
And evil’s grinning

It’s Friday
The soldiers nail my Savior’s hands
To the cross
They nail my Savior’s feet
To the cross
And then they raise him up
Next to criminals

It’s Friday
But let me tell you something
Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
The disciples are questioning
What has happened to their King
And the Pharisees are celebrating
That their scheming
Has been achieved
But they don’t know
It’s only Friday
Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
He’s hanging on the cross
Feeling forsaken by his Father
Left alone and dying
Can nobody save him?
Ooooh
It’s Friday
But Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
The earth trembles
The sky grows dark
My King yields his spirit

It’s Friday
Hope is lost
Death has won
Sin has conquered
and Satan’s just a laughin’

It’s Friday
Jesus is buried
A soldier stands guard
And a rock is rolled into place

But it’s Friday
It is only Friday
SUNDAY IS A COMIN’!

Dr. S.M. Lockridge

Good Bye, Starbucks...

I have officially joined the nationwide boycott of Starbucks.   To be completely honest, I wasn't aware that such a boycott existed until 12 hours ago.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is on the record that his company firmly backs the "right" of gay "couples" to marry and enjoy all of the benefits accorded to heterosexual couples.

As a Born Again, fundamentalist Christian, I stand firmly behind the Biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman until parted by death (yes, I oppose adultery and remarriage after divorce on Biblical grounds as well, but those are discussions for another time).  The Bible clearly teaches this precept:

But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.  So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.  Genesis 2:19 - 24, ESV 

This precept was confirmed by the teachings of both Jesus and Paul in the New Testament:

 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,  and said,‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6, ESV

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”  Mark 10:6-9, ESV

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  Ephesians 5:31, ESV

 Schultz, however, has taken a political position on this issue that stands in opposition to this Biblical precept.  When a stockholder observed during a recent stockholders' meeting that their returns had diminished 10% in the wake of a nationwide boycott of Starbucks relating to their support for gay marriage, the CEO told him, 

"...it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds... You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.” howard schultz to pro-Biblical marriage starbucks shareholder

Schultz's declaration was applauded by the other stockholders.

Until such time as Schultz repents of his blatantly unBiblical position, I have officially joined the ranks of those will no longer do business with Starbucks.

The Romeike Deportation Battle - Responding to a Grossly Uninformed Critic...

The following was posted to the wall of the Facebook Group, Stop the DOJ's Persecution of the Romeike Family, last night: "They came here to escape proscecution for NOTt sending their children to school which is the Law.. not for religious proscecution" (copied here EXACTLY as it was posted to the wall).

This is our response:  And the reason for which they objected to the law and the teaching of the schools that led to their decision to homeschool was based on their religious convictions. Acts 5:27-28, "And when they had brought them [the apostles], they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men." The lawmakers of their day forbad the apostles to teach about Jesus; you can see their response. 

There comes a point where we must obey the Bible over man's laws. 

This country was founded, in no small part, by individuals who came here to worship according to their convictions regarding what the Bible taught. The law of their day outlawed all but the state religion. Using Holder's argument, the pilgrims didn't have a claim of religious persecution, because the law applied equally to everyone - it didn't single out any particular religious sect. Furthermore, Holder argues that the Romeike's decision to flee the country must be consistent with the general beliefs of their religion; since their religion requires neither homeschooling nor fleeing the country, they have no right to do either of those things, either. They have no individual right to freedom of religion. So according to Holder's arguments, the pilgrims had no right to flee the country because their religion didn't require such action of them. 

We, however, believe in the pre-eminence of the individual conscience and hold, along with Gallatin, that the Bill of Rights protects the INDIVIDUAL'S freedoms of religion, conscience, association, and self-determination as unalienable rights. Holder's arguments are disturbing because he is, in fact, arguing the WE don't have an individual right to these things, either. This case establishes the precedent for the demolition of individual liberties and the supremacy of the individual conscience.

Where the "Gun Problem" exists...

Yup.  That about sums it up.

The Romeike Family Deportation Battle and Why it Matters to ALL OF US...

Why is the Romeike homeschooling deportation case important? In a word, PRECEDENT.

The foundation for the DOJ case is two-fold.

First, AG Holder argues that the Romeike family has no right to asylum because German law bans homeschooling for everyone, not just religious families. Since the law applies to everyone, he argues, no one can claim they are being persecuted on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Second, he argues that the Romeike family failed to prove that ALL RELIGIONS, or even their own religion, require homeschooling.

The underlying idea, then, is that there is no INDIVIDUAL right to freedom of religion in the US, only a GENERAL right to worship - and the interests of the state supersede the individual conscience. As such, AG Holder is using a relatively obscure case to establish a precedent that will effect ALL OF US.

This is contrary to our history. We have taught that the pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution; under the Holder doctrine, this teaching must be revised. Adherence to the state religion was mandatory for all citizens at the time the pilgrims came to the New World, so under the Holder doctrine, they had no legitimate claim to religious persecution since the law was binding on all and did not target any specific religious group.

Further, it is contrary to the understanding of the Founders, expressed so eloquently by Albert Gallatin, member of congress in the late 1700's and Treasure Secretary from 1801 - 1813: 

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large OR CONSIDERED AS INDIVIDUALS... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

If AG Holder is successful in having this family deported based on these arguments, he will establish a ruinous precedent regarding our individual liberties. Supporting this family's battle to retain their asylum is support for ALL of us.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-DOJs-Persecution-of-the-Romeike-Family/489996021048844

Senator Paul Achieves Constitutional Victory!!!

Sen. Paul accomplished his goal!

In response to his filibuster, the received the following message from AG Eric Holder:

"'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'  The answer to that question is NO. (emphasis added)"

Thank you, Senator!  And shame on the rest of you who made him go it alone.  You swore an oath to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution; that is your primary duty, from which all others are derived.  Once again, David takes on Goliath while the rest of the army stands on the sidelines - not willing to take part in the battle, but, instead, deriding the one man who was willing to engage the fight. 

Well done, Senator Paul.

Amnesty Rebuttal...

Any scheme that provides special pathways to citizenship to illegals or their children amounts to amnesty.

It is unethical - immoral - to provide the children of illegals with options not extended to the children of our own citizens.  We have been force-fed a steady stream of the argument that because the children of illegals had no say in their parents' decision, it is immoral to force the breakup of families, that we owe them their own special pathway to citizenship, free education through college, and preferential consideration in employment. 

And yet, the same people who make these arguments conveniently ignore the plight of the children of incarcerated citizens who live in single parent homes, with relatives, or in foster care because their parents engaged in illegal activities.  They also had no choice in the matter, and in many cases their parents engaged in illegal activity to try provide a better life for them (sound familiar?). No one argues the morality of breaking up these families, offers them free education through college, or preference in employment. This is just a consequence with which they must learn to live.

This is the double standard being forced on us. If it is just, albeit regrettable, that the children of our own citizens suffer as a consequence of the decisions of their parents, then it is likewise just that the children of illegals experience similar consequences.

In the end, it is our children who must live with the consequences of our decisions.

An Open Letter To Sen. Feinstein....

Senator,

I am not from your state, but I have contacted my own legislators numerous time over the years regarding proposed gun control measures.  Since you are the one spearheading this legislation, I now contact you directly.

For the record, I am one of the millions of firearms owners who does his own research and who speaks for himself.  I am a Constitutional Constructionist.  The Preamble of the Bill of Rights, which records that the Bill of Rights was passed by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and ratified by a supermajority of the legislatures of the States, states its purpose as follows:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution (emphasis added).

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

While federalist justices may choose to ignore the clear meaning of this document, its intent is clear:  the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights supersede the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution - placing the Second Amendment beyond the power of the federal government to infringe upon the right enumerated therein.  This is the explicit, stated purpose of the Bill of Rights.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports make two things crystal clear: 1) Murder and other violent crimes have diminished to historic lows even as firearms ownership and carry increases to historic highs.  2) The states with the most murders and other violent crimes are those that have implemented the strictest gun control measures.

Additional research performed by criminologists tells us that, despite the recent spike in mass shootings, such events have been on the decline since the '90's:

"And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062#ixzz2JI3eCAdw

Senator, I STAND OPPOSED TO THE GUN CONTROL MEASURES YOU HAVE PROPOSED.  I will do everything in my power to bring together the grassroots support necessary to keep your proposals from being realized.

Respectfully submitted,

Ft. Hood Attack Labeled "Workplace Violence" by Administration....

From Stars and Stripes, 10/18/2012. Despite the conclusion of a bi-partisan Congressional report and an FBI investigation concluding that the Ft. Hood attack was domestic terrorism, he administration has now classified the Ft. Hood shooting as an act of "workplace violence", not a terrorist attack. 

With this classification, "...the victims do not get combat-related special compensation that provides disability pay for medically retired service members." This also affects their ability to obtain physical therapy, and medical and psychological treatment relating to the attack, and prevents them from receiving the Purple Heart.To call this a travesty is an understatement of gargantuan proportions. Our service members deserve this support regardless of whether the enemy is foreign or domestic. Take a moment to contact your legislators in DC and let them know what YOU think about this.

And then pass this along.  If this doesn't make your blood boil, I don't know what else will.

Ft. Hood shootings want attack called terror

The Bill of Rights v. the Clauses

The battle lines are being drawn.  The fields of battle are varied, but they share one commonality: whether they concern federal abortifacient mandates, gun control, or the health mandate, all represent conflicts between enumerated Constitutional rights and the big three clauses - the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution.

A number of states have initiated legislation to reassert their rights under the Tenth Amendment to nullify federal legislation that conflicts with those rights.  The typical federalist answer is that the big three clauses trump the rights of the States or the People.

Here is my response to appeals to the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses: 

"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.  

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.  

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution..." (all caps added). 

 
The stated intention of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the abuse of power by the federal government by restricting the very clauses to which many in Congress have appealed. Simply stated, the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights SUPERSEDE the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses - regardless of whether federalist-minded judges agree with that truth. The Bill of Rights was ratified by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, which was absolutely necessary because Washington was opposed to many of the provisions it contained (it is interesting to note that the Preamble of the Bill of Rights says nothing about the President SIGNING it, only that it was ratified by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and by a three-quarters supermajority of the legislatures of the States). Why? Because the provisions of the Bill of Rights  would have served to diminish the absolute power of the federal government. George Washington's circular letter to the governors of the States and his retirement address both declare his unswerving belief that this would be detrimental to the future of the country, that an absolutely supreme, all powerful, centralized government to which the States and the People were in absolute subservience was the only way to insure our future. We can see where Washington's beliefs have taken us as our Constitutionally-enumerated rights continue to be eroded by a power-hungry government that represents its own interests and agenda.

Remember: the United States was created by the States.  The principle established in the Bible is that the potter has power over the clay.  It is inappropriate for the clay to say to the potter, "Why have you made me this way?"  So it is supposed to be in the relationship between the States and the federal government.  The States created the federal government.  The States, therefore, retain the power to determine the extent to which federal authority is allowed to go.