Christians Are To Fight
The Ungodly - Part 1
Many of us, Israel Christians, get so sick of hearing that Christians
are not supposed to defend themselves. Than Christianity is a religion
of self destruction of the White Race, and other such drivel; from otherwise
intelligent men. Because of the false teachings of the Judeo-Christian
traitors in America's pulpits; on television, radio; and in the movies
they never learn that Christianity is not a pacifist religion as
some would suppose from watching the cowardly Judeo-Christian clergy, as
they kowtow to the antichrist Jews and government agents. That some of
the most courageous mighty men of war of all time were White Christians.
Such teaching is not Scriptural; it is the teachings of people
who have lived in countries where the ownership of guns has been condemned
for many years; and those people have been taught that no one is to own
a gun except someone who lives in the country or is a police officer or
soldier: It is also the teaching of cowards and traitors to Almighty God
and the Lord Jesus Christ. It is my firm belief that if a man/woman will
not fight for family, or Jesus Christ in this world, then they will certainly
not fight for Christ when He returns to rid, the Kingdom of God, of the
evil ones and the results of their evil among His Chosen.
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of
his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
(1 Timothy 5:8)
Reference has been many by many: "believe it is important to understand
what Jesus meant because he plainly taught that His Kingdom was not to
be set up by force prior to His Second Coming." But I have been unable
to find Christ telling us this.
What I do find about the Kingdom and force is: "And from the days
of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence,
and the violent take it by force." (Matt 11:12)
We further find Christ telling us: "Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matt 10:34)
Christ went even further and told us: "hen said he unto them,
But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip;
and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (In that
day and time a sword was what a gun is today, a weapon for self-defense)
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished
in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning
me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he
said unto them, it is enough." (Luke 22:36-38)
They will also come up with that old song; "Then said Jesus unto
him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the
sword shall perish with the sword." (Matt 26:52) Meaning that if He, Christ,
should live by the sword against these men; that He would eventually die
by the sword and that was not what God wanted or intended that He should
do. He had to obey and follow what had been prophesied of Him. But notice:
Christ did not tell Peter to get rid of the sword because it was evil,
but simply to put into his place, meaning that the sword is not an evil
thing, but that His capture by the Jews and His crucifixion had to be,
and that He could and would do nothing to prevent God's will.
For He said immediately after: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now
pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions
of angels?" (Matt 26:53)
We also find the following in Luke 22:49-51: "When they which
were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we
smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest,
and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, suffer ye thus
far. And he touched his ear, and healed him." Now we can see clearly here
that Christ did not tell His apostles and those who were following Him
not to fight, but to suffer His being captured at this particular time
and place.
Christ also told Peter in John 18:11: "Then said Jesus unto Peter,
Put up thy sword into the sheath: The cup which my father hath given me,
shall I not drink it?" Here we can see Christ telling His disciples and
those who were following Him that it was God's Will that He be taken and
crucified. That they should not fight to defend Him at that time. He did
not tell them not to fight to deliver His Kingdom from the enemy.
Jesus told Pilate: "Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this
world (Christ is saying that His kingdom was not of that Roman and Jewish
world): If my kingdom were of this world (Here again He is using the word
"this" meaning that His kingdom was not of the Roman and Jewish world,
but was someplace else; but if they were in His Kingdom then His Servants
would fight), then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered
to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)
There is nothing in the Word of God which even suggests that His
people simply lay down and let the antichrists and the evil ones walk over
them. For He gave us warning that the unGodly would "Remember the word
that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they
have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my
saying, they will keep yours also." (John 15:20)
Christ also related "Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I
will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay
and persecute." (Luke 11:49)
Christ condemns the man who will not defend his own family: "But
if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house,
he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)
So we must fight, not only to defend the faith, but to defend
our home, our family and our country and the Kingdom of God, which is the
United States of America. Which is why God would not allow the South to
separate from the North as He did in ancient Israel.
If it were not for men who owned guns and willing to use them,
these self-righteous men and women would not have the country and all the
material goods that surrounds them. They are indeed ungrateful.
It is like those who say that God's Laws have been done away with;
for if there is no law then there is no sin, and if there is no sin then
Christ died in vain. For without law there is no trespass and without a
trespass of the law there is no sin; for sin is the transgression of the
law.
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin
is the transgression of the law." (I John 3:4)
Now make no mistake I believe that these people sincerely believe
in Christ; they believe in God, and they can do marvelous things because
they can tap into God's awesome power through their faith. Just as the
Canaanite woman when she asked Christ to heal her daughter and in Matthew
15:28 He said: "Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is
thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made
whole from that very hour." (And in Mark 7:28)
So you see Christ did not heal her daughter but her faith did!
For Christ said; "O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee even as
thou wilt."
Now these people mentioned above have such faith and will say
to the Lord in that day: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils?
and in thy name done many wonderful works?" (Matthew 7:22) So we see here
that there are people who can prophesy; cast out devils; and have and will
do many wonderful works, but Christ will say to them: "And then will I
profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
(lawlessness, do not obey God's laws, statutes and judgments)." (Matthew
7:23)
Christians Are To Fight The Ungodly
- Part 2
No one has any objection to the Blacks defending themselves; nor
for the Jews to teach to every Jew a 22. But let a Christian defend him/herself
that brings on all kinds of outcries from those who profess themselves
to be such great Christians that they can reprimand their brothers and
sisters, when in fact, they are nothing of the sort and don't know what
being a Christian is.
Almost immediately after an attack on a Christian criticism is
leveled at that person who dares to defend him/herself. Many times the
police will admit that without such defense the person could have been
mugged, raped or worse, but the attack was cut short by the prompt action
of the man or woman who fought back. Yet our so-called religious leaders,
and other so-called Christians will take it upon themselves to condemn
that act of defense.
It is of course inconsistent to condemn violence and then to condemn
those who resist violence. One cannot weigh the defender in the same scales
as the aggressor. The innocent have a right to protect themselves from
the guilty! The Law of God states: "If the thief is found breaking in,
and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed."
(Exodus 22:2)
If killing a thief is acceptable to God then how much more would
be the act of the brave young man or woman who shot back at the attacker
and cut short their attack on them. "Be not ye afraid of them: remember
the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your
sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses." (Nehemiah 4:14).
Make no mistake about it, God is not a pacifist (Ezekiel 14:21;
Deuteronomy 32:39-43); neither is Jesus a pacifist (Matthew 21:12-13; Luke
22:36; Revevelation 14:19-20; 19:11-16) nor is the Bible a pacifist document
(Numbers 1:2-3; Judges 3:2; Psalm 144;1-2). That is the teachings of the
cowardly and traitorous Judeo-Christian Clergy.
There are 6 different words for "kill" in the Hebrew. The Bible
clearly distinguishes between premeditated murder (which is what the 6th
Commandment forbids: "You shall do no murder"), accidental manslaughter,
killing an enemy in the heat of battle, the killing of animals, execution
of criminals for capital offenses and self defense.
Pacifist Christians are inconsistent Christians; they are double
minded, and the Scriptures state: "A double minded man is unstable in all
his ways. Pacifism is an un-Biblical position. God's Word commands that
murderers be executed (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:12-16; Leviticus 24:17-22;
Number 35:33). Civil government is appointed to "Bear the sword...He is
God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
(Romans 13:4)
While the band played the siren's song Americans lost their country
while they sing; It can't happen here but it has.
It was clear that all the government had to do was wait. The multitudes
of demonstrators in the immense government square had shrunk to a few thousand,
and more were drifting away every day. But the hardliners {rulers} were
determined that the demonstrators shouldn't escape unscathed; such protests
could lead to open rebellion and violent revolution {so they said; to justify
their actions}, like the one {the Civil War} that had created the present
government.
With the heads of government divided and wavering, the Army {secretly
acting under the orders of the President} decided {we are told} to act.
Obeying the orders of the president, the commanding general of the army
lined up his forces facing the demonstrators and ordered them to disperse.
The demonstrators didn't think the Army would attack.
It did. Tanks rolled into and across the demonstrators' ramshackle
huts. marching soldiers with fixed bayonets and assault rifles and tear
gas followed the tanks, clubbing, bayoneting and shooting those assembled.
The Army later said the demonstrators rioted; the generals claimed armed
soldiers were attacked. {But the results were that} Many of the demonstrators
were wounded; the number who died will never be known; the government claimed
it was only one.
The commanding general declared that the demonstrators were driven
by "the essence of revolution," and that it was "beyond the shadow of a
doubt" that the demonstrators had been about to seize control of the government.
The commander was Douglas MacArthur.
The Place was Washington, D.C., not Beijing or some other foreign
country.
The date was 1932, not 1989.
The "assault rifles" were bolt-action Springfield Model 1903,
not an AK-47.
The peaceful demonstrators weren't students in Tiananmen Square
demanding then equivalent of our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for grievances.
The demonstrators on the Washington Mall and nearby Anacostia
already had those rights; their problem was that they used them. They were
Americans; World War I Veterans, thrown out of work by the great depression
{Caused by the Jewish owned and controlled Federal Reserve}, lobbying for
government to immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.
No, the attack on the Bonus Marchers, bad as it was, wasn't the
brutal mass murder unleashed upon the students in Beijing. The American
people wouldn't have tolerated it; and had the means to stop it. What happened
at Tiananmen Square was the kind of ruthless tyranny that has occurred
in other lands through out history, and is precisely what the Founding
Fathers feared might be done by the powerful central government they were
creating under the United States Constitution.
That's why the people refused to ratify that Constitution until
it was amended to guarantee certain individual freedoms known today as
the Bill of Rights. That's why the First Amendment guarantees of {free}
speech {Which today applies as long as the government approves of what
is being said or written}, assembly {As long as it serves the purposes
of the one-worlders} and petitioning the government {as long as it is Jews
demanding money so they can continue murdering young children in the Mid-east}
were backed up by the Second Amendment guarantee that the right of the
people to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. And when, during
debate on the amendment, some senators attempted to limit the right to
apply only to "the common defense;" which is what some people today say
it is, the Senate rejected it. That piece of "legislative history" clearly
shows that the Second Amendment was intended to be an individual right,
not merely a "collective right" of states to have milit!
ia.
Most of the world's constitutions, even the
Constitution of Soviet Russia, contain beautiful words promising freedoms
that only U.S. citizens enjoy. The reason, as unintentionally acknowledged
by the anti-gun {anti-Christ, anti-American} crowd, is that only in the
United States {have} do individual citizens have such relatively free and
unfettered access to firearms. But instead of glorying in that unique freedom,
and the freedoms it guarantees, some {our enemies; the Jews and their bootlicks}
in the establishment are attempting to eliminate it, with too much success.
This nation existed for 150 years without any federal gun laws.
The National Firearms Act, attempting to tax out of existence machine guns
and short-barreled shotguns {the bill originally included handguns} was
enacted in 1934. Don't kid yourself that the reason was not Thompson-toting
hoodlums like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde. The
reason was the fear put into the Establishment by those Bonus marchers,
and the March 7, 1932 march on the Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan, where
police killed four and wounded 50.
Christians Are To Fight The Ungodly
- Part 3
The government's fear was summed up by one of the co-sponsors
of a bill to ban private possession of "military weapons whose only purpose
is to kill people." During the hearings he blurted it out: "What scares
me is the thought of those veterans going against police; Vietnam veterans
know how to use those guns." {What's new about that? All military personnel
know how to use guns!}.
The legislator was testifying in Maryland hearings earlier this
year {1989} on a California-type bill banning the possession of AK-47 rifles
and other military-style semi-automatics. I was there; I heard him say
it. {The only reason a government would fear its citizens owning weapons
is because that government has turned outlaw -- for only outlaws fear honest
men with weapons!}.
New Jersey State Police Col. Clinton Pagano, a determined advocate
for prohibitive gun laws, has said many times that "Gun control is people
control." He is exactly correct. That objective never changes, only the
excuses used to promote it.
The first major gun control push in this country wasn't "to control
crime," it was to control freed slaves. The first Supreme Court decision
on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), so proudly cited by
anti-gun "liberals," held that the "right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed by the Congress, that the Second Amendment
did not prohibit the Ku Klux Klan from conspiring with local officials
to prevent freed slaves from possessing guns and attending political meetings.
The next major wave of "gun control" was supposedly to deny guns
to "anarchists;" which was a code name for immigrants, during the waves
of immigration around the turn of the century. For the first time the criminal
element began actively using and promoting "gun control" As a means of
disarming potential victims.
Immigrant shopkeepers, accustomed to being bullied by thugs, corrupt
police and government in Europe, had willingly paid "protection money"
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." (Hosea 4:6)
We can see clearly by their actions that the legislatures of the
various states and the Congress of the Federal Government care nothing
at all about the Constitution, but only about what their handlers want.
Because all State and Federal Legislators: such as Senator, Representative
and even the President of the United States, in accordance with the Constitution
of the United States: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned,
and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution..."
(United States Constitution Article VI, par. 3)
The oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution is as follows:
"I (Whatever the persons names is) solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of Senator of the State of, and will to the
best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the
United States."
Now one must assume that anyone, man or woman, who attains the
favor of the people of the State, so as to be given the privilege of serving
in the office of Senator, must be a person of honor and honesty. That being
the case; you have no other alternative, if you are to be true to the oath
of office (Senator or Representative) and to your constitutes than to oppose
any and all bills, plans, designs, etc. to subvert, distort or destroy
the Second Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America.
It is my belief that if a State or Federal Senator cannot, in
good conscience be true to their oath of office, then that individual should
resign his/her office to someone who can and will uphold their oath of
office. It is as simple as that! But if you need further argument I respectfully
submit the following for your consideration.
What freedom will our enemies in government seize next? Today
Our Guns!!! -- Tomorrow Our Liberty???
Because of the present gun-control; gun grab, controversy once
again sweeping the country and its critical ramifications, we have decided
to briefly address the subject of "Gun Control."
If our fuzzy-thinking theologians and so-called Christian leaders
across the land were proclaiming God's Law regarding capital crimes and
punishment to the nation like they should be, there would not be the present
controversy regarding the banning of certain types of weapons; because
there would be few, if any, crimes to provoke such controversy. The strict
enforcement of God's Law would strike fear in the hearts of would-be murderers,
rapists, kidnappers, drug traffickers, etc., as they would know they would
be facing swift and certain death or appropriate punishment for their heinous
acts; God's way, not man's way, that is, "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth," etc.
The Militia
Before commenting on the present controversy we should, perhaps,
look at the subject of "the armed citizenry" from a historical perspective,
as set forth in the publication, "The Gospel Truth" [Southwest Radio Church,
P.O. Box 1144, Oklahoma City, Okla. 73101] by Bill Uselton, we will offer
a few quotes.
"The militia is mentioned more often in the Constitution than
any other branch of service. We are told today that the national Guard
is a militia. However, the Guard is a product of this century; its origin
has a date of January 21, 1903. What were the founders of our country talking
about then, in 1789? The subject was so important that it was clarified
in the Second Amendment to the Constitution: 'A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'...Thus, the word "militia,"
when used in a constitutional context, means the whole people [According
to the Federalist Papers -- all men 17 years of age and over]..."
Don't overlook that statement: "necessary to the security of a
free state." Which means just exactly what it says, that if you don't or
can't own weapons to defend yourself then we can not have a free state.
And if we don't have a free state? What is left? A totalitarian state!
Biblical Background
"There does not appear to be any basis in Scripture, either in
the Old Testament or the New, for the concept of a 'good' God who enjoins
pacifism on His followers...Pacifism was not tolerated in Ancient Israel.
One could be excused from military duty (Deut. 20:5-7), but refusing to
fight was cause for a death sentence...
An often misunderstood and mis-quoted statement of our Lord while
He was in the Garden of Gethsemane is: "'Then said Jesus unto him, Put
up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
Never were truer words spoken, for those that take the sword and
to live by it do die by the sword. Who takes the sword? Robbers, mercenaries,
thieves, and cut-throats. If you live by the sword, i.e. violence, you
do tend to die by it..."
Christ never meant that we should not defend ourselves. His commandment
to us was: "Then said he [Christ] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse,
let him take it, and likewise his script: and he that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
Jesus told His disciples this because He knew that Christians:
"For we [Christians] wrestle [fight] 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." (Ephesians 6:12)
Christians Are To Fight The Ungodly
- Part 4
Therefore, Christians are to: "...take unto you [Christians] the
whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day..."
(Ephesians 6:13)
So Christ is clearly showing us that we Christians are to fight
against the wickedness of the world, and not to simply lay down and die
like spineless wimps!
Historical Background
Throughout history, tyrants have tried to restrict the right of
the individual to bear arms. Every communist country sees to it that ONLY
the armed forces, police, and party officials have firearms. Could they
do what they did in Russia and the Ukraine if the people were armed? Could
the slaughters in China have occurred? What about the killing fields of
Cambodia?
Make no mistake about it, it was private ownership of weapons
which spelled defeat for the Russians in Afghanistan, and is currently
spelling defeat to the Russians in Checkneia.
The Militia Act of 1792, drafted by the Second Continental Congress
required that all able-bodied men between 17 and 44 years of age keep a
firearm and at least sixty rounds of ammunition. That is the Constitutional
meaning of the word "militia." It was this armed citizen who won the American
Revolution. Not a bunch of wimpy Judeo-Christians!!!!
Noah Webster, author of the Webster's Dictionary and friend and
contemporary of the founders wrote: "Before a standing army can rule, the
people must be disarmed...The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust
laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed..."
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself."
This statement by President George Washington himself should make his position
apparent. What Washington said directly after that is even more clear:
"They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...From
the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences,
and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the
rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms
everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor
with all that's good..."
The government of Switzerland feels the same way our founders
did about bearing arms. Every able-bodied man in Switzerland is a member
of the militia, and has a machine gun or a sniper rifle in his home with
ammunition. Not only that bot Switzerland also has the lowest crime rate
in Europe.
We believe author Bill Uselton establishes the crux of the matter
in this statement: "We were, as a nation, endowed with certain rights as
citizens. We have the Second Amendment, not so that we can protect our
homes from criminals, though we do; not so that we can fight off invading
armies, though we can and would; we have this precise right [The right
to bear arms] so that we can fight off a tyranny of our own government
[If it ever becomes necessary]."
Thus we must ask the question: How can the citizenry carry out
this vital mission without access to the same caliber weapons that the
tyrants control? Mr. Uselton must have read the writings of Thomas Jefferson,
who in a letter to Colonel Smith about Shay's rebellion, wrote: "...God
forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion...What country
can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time,
that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The
tree of liberty must be freshened from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants..."
There is no evidence that states with stricter firearm restrictions
have statistically significantly lower rates of homicides, robberies, or
aggravated assaults than states with looser or no control. In fact, the
opposite is the rule!
"It is pleasant," the article concludes, "to dream about solving
age-old problems of crime and human violence with a simplistic approach
like gun control. But it remains a delusory dream."
Many years ago Congress prohibited the ownership of automatic
weapons, today gun control advocates seek the ban of what is called "assault"
rifles, tomorrow they will seek to ban the hunting rifle, and in the future
they will ban all guns.
You say: We do not wish to ban all guns, only "assault guns."
If that is true, then why is it that every time a bill is introduced in
the various state and federal legislatures; they always, always name several
different types of fire arms and several types of "shotguns?" So this proves
the statement "We do not wish to ban all guns." to be a lie or at the very
least a mis-representation. And I believe that in your heart you know what
we are saying is true. That being; The government "does" intend to disarm
the American people as soon as it possibly can!
Look at the evidence, every time a gun control bill comes up for
vote and if there is any danger of it not passing; suddenly there is someone
like those two in Littleton, Colorado who will kill several people with
various weapons, and then kill themselves. It has happened numerous times
in the past but it seems that Americans are incapable of seeing past the
end of their nose, and cannot seem to learn anything.
Bob Hallstrom, of America's Promise, in his pamphlet entitled
"The Guns of God," wrote: "To oppose the right to keep and bear arms on
ideological grounds is one thing, even though it indicates a clear lack
of historical perspective and a denial of the natural, absolute inalienable
right to defend one's life, family, property, and freedom. However, to
oppose that right by denying that the Second Amendment means what it says
or that it does not pertain to the rights of the people, is at best a demonstration
of ignorance, and in most instances a maneuver of deception and intellectual
dishonesty."
We should not have to remind everyone that the right of self-protection
lies with every individual. Of the right of self- protection, Chief Davis
of the Los Angeles Police Department has stated: "The primary responsibility
of protecting yourself and your family is still yours, and nobody else's."
Many of you may not have guns and perhaps, care little about gun
control measures. But, keep in mind that these are perilous times. Conditions
could arise whereby your life or safety could depend upon your neighbor
who is armed. It is the duty of ALL AMERICANS to oppose all gun control
legislation thereby supporting the Constitutionally declared "Right of
the people to keep and bear arms." (Second Amendment to the Constitution)
Whether used by the local police or one's self, guns have become
the primary means of protection of one's life, liberty, property, and family.
Even the Word of God advises us to be fully armed: "When a strong man [fully]
armed keepeth his palace [homestead], his goods are in peace [safe]: But
when a stronger than he [government] come upon him, and overcome him, he
taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."
(Luke 21:21-22)
When a government begins to limit the ownership and use of some
guns, it can and will eventually limit the ownership and use of ALL guns.
When that time comes Christian and non-Christian patriots will be unable
to be "fully armed," and a man will not be able to "guard his own home
or country" nor see to it that "his possessions are undisturbed."
Make no mistake about it; If anyone, anyone, advocates the right
of the government to take your guns he/she is an enemy of both you and
America!!! It matters not who the advocate is; if they advocate gun control,
non-ownership of guns: then they are your enemy as well as every citizen
of the United States!!!
Christians Are To Fight The Ungodly
- Part 5
We The People An Endangered
Species
Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police,
prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the thieves, and treats the victim
-- when he defends himself -- as a criminal...But how is this legal theft
to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons
what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not
belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by
doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
In recognition of the last annual event observed by a large segment
of the population who, by some stretch of the imagination have determined
they are "taxpayers" and thereby "required to file." They have dutifully
calculated [or have had it done for them] their annual extortion payment
to the eight banks that own America. Which many believe to be: (1) Rothschild
banks of London and Berlin, (2) Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, (3) Israel
Moses Seif Banks of Italy, (4) Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam, (5)
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York, (6) Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York, (7)
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, and (8) Goldman, Sachs Bank of
New York.
To ease the pain they are reassured that any financial hardship
incurred is more than compensated by the patriotism and pride that will
lift their souls by knowing they are "paying their fair share" to keep
America and democracy strong and free. This notion, which, incredibly is
still believed by a goodly number of tax-payers.
To help bring into sharp focus the nightmarish realization that
the species known as Free, White, American Citizens, i.e. "We the People,"
in their present role as supine pawns of the godless predators of International
Finance, are now listed among the endangered species of the earth; along
with the grizzly bear, the bald eagle and the California condor. In fact,
the White Race may have already passed these critters in their headlong
rush to extinction.
Tragically, as this once Noble Race passes from the American scene,
together with the America we once knew, they will still be singing, robot
fashion, as they shuffle along in their chains, "My country 'tis of Thee,
sweet land of Liberty..." and chanting "...one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and justice for all" right up to the bitter end.
Because of the gutless Judeo-Christian Clergy of America, with
their sickening, spineless, and cowardly whimper "You must obey Caesar."
Something that the Apostles never did. They have reduced and castrated
our American Men with their sickening cry of "Love, love, love," and not
with the fire of true Christianity. They have bowed down to Baal and preach
his doctrines, the doctrines of the Tradition of the Elders, which our
Lord Jesus Christ denounced so strongly during His stay on earth.
Free or Freer?
The following by C. Ellen Shaffer is slightly abridged. Under
the title, Free Or Freer? She writes: "My status as a slave does not depend
on the kind of master I have. My status of slave arises out of my belief
that I am under the absolute power of another.
Today most Americans are so brain dead that they would run out
and buy a walking license if some government agent demanded it. If their
masters demanded they purchase a permit to mow their lawn, most of them
would comply. This belief that they are under the absolute power of someone
else makes them a slave. It matters not that the masters have not
yet demanded such license or permit. What matters is the fact that the
slaves would comply if ordered to do so.
There is no doubt, this slavery of the American people has been
self-imposed; for rape is not rape if one does not struggle. I can assure
you; that Americans did not struggle. They went meekly into chains while
murmuring ‘render unto Caesar.' It was quite a feat to turn the posterity
of Freedom loving men of courage into [gutless, castrated] sniveling cowards
who welcomed servitude over the animating contest of liberty and responsibility
for themselves.
The posterity of Freemen now proclaim themselves to be 'freer'
and will continue to do so even when they must shout it from the confines
of a concentration camp [which are being built even as this is being written].
They will be so sure that somewhere someone is more in bondage than they...If
we are only free to exercise and enjoy messiah's privileges, then we're
not free in any sense of the word."
The events of our day leaves an observant Christian American that
America is presently experiencing the incessant, insidious disarming that
has happened elsewhere in the world by a process the Communists call "Creeping
Gradualism." This process was described by Jan Kosek, a member of the Secretariat
of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia, in his book "Not A Shot Was Fired."
It was with this process the Communists took control of Czechoslovakia.
It has been compared to boiling a frog alive in a pan of water.
A process that is not hard to do if one begins with room-temperature water
and then gradually turns the heat up only a degree at a time.
So, in America men and women first forbid automatic weapons, then
concealed weapons, sawed-off shotguns, then they begin to work on so-called
Saturday-night specials [hand guns] and now, it's semi-automatic assault
rifles. Not satisfied with that they pass laws to sign forms before purchasing
and have so-called "cooling-off" waiting periods. City councils pass gun
laws, city mayor groups cry out for more gun control, certain elected officials
with bleeding liberal hearts decry gun deaths and the water gets hotter.
Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks in Russia, said: "A system of
licensing and registration, is the perfect device to deny gun ownership
tot he bourgeoises [The Middle-Class]."
In 1968 the Director of the National Task Force for the Control
of Firearms was asked why the Americans were suspicious of gun control.
He replied: "Because they know we are coming to get their guns."
All who advocate "gun-control" are in the company of a very famous
group of men.
Lenin: (a Jew) The murdering Communist attributed with the establishment
of the world's first Communist Dictatorship in Russia, voted for gun control.
He said: "One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the
arming of the workers [the communists] and the disarming of the bourgeoisie
[The middle class]."
Trotsky: (a Jew) A Communist contemporary of Lenin, also believed
in gun control and said to insure a communist totalitarian state there,
"...arises the necessity of disarming the bourgeoisie and arming the workers,
of creating a communist army."
Josef Stalin: (a Jew) Another Communist Butcher who championed
the destruction of freedom and Christianity, showed how well he favored
gun control when he said: "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If
it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
Mao-tse-Tung: (a Jew) The Communist often called the greatest
mass murderer in all history, favored gun control. While the hypocrite
cited the communist slogan of "power to the people," he took away their
power by disarming them. He said: "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
And of course today's communists such as Gorbachev and Castro
also vote in favor of gun control.
"We must realize that our party's most powerful
weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the
dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by
the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party.
In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority
against the whites, we will endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex
for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise
in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world
of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able
to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America
to our cause." (Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912)
quoted by Congressman Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559)
Christians Are To Fight The Ungodly
- Part 6
Americans need to recall these names, these champions of government
oppression, human slavery, and murder when their own leaders advocate gun
control.
They should know also that it is their "enemy" who wants and advocates
gun control!!! We must repeat ourselves; He or she who favors gun control
may masquerade as a republican, democrat, Christian, Communist, Peacenik
or whatever but Jesus Christ has identified such a person as an "enemy."
Americans "must" learn to realize that only an enemy objects to them exercising
self- defense or owning the means of self-defense.
Our American government has turned into
an outlaw government
The following works of John Locke describe perfectly what our
beloved American Government has become: "And hence it is, that he who attempts
to get another Man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into
a state of war with him; it being understood as a declaration of a design
upon his life. For I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me
into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased, when he
had got me there, and destroy me too, when he had a fancy to it; for no
body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel
me by force to that, which is against the right of my freedom, i.e., make
me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security to my preservation;
and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, and who
would take away that Freedom, which is the fence to it; so that he who
makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war
with me...And one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered
an enmity to his being, for the same reason, that he may kill a wolf or
a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the Common Law of Reason,
have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated
as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be
sure to destroy him, whenever he falls into their power."
The words of Locke on slavery seem to match the Scriptures in
Galatians as we paraphrase it. "It was for freedom that Christ set us free;
therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."
(Galatians 5:1)
Now let us consider the words of Jesus Christ which teach a valuable
principle every American should know. "When a strong man [fully] armed
keepeth his palace [homestead], his goods are in peace [undisturbed]: But
when a stronger [government] than he [attacks] shall come upon him, and
overcome [overpowers] him, he taketh from him all his armour [takes away
his weapons and armor upon which he had relied to protect him] wherein
he trusted, and divideth his spoils." (Luke 21:21-22)
Notice from this teaching how peace and safety existed in and
with the household of the man who was fully armed. The first thing his
enemy did was overpower him and disarm him. Isn't it interesting the more
power obtained by certain city councils, state legislators, and elected
officials, the more desirous these people become of disarming the people?
Remember power is not authority. For instance, city councils and state
legislatures may have the police power at their disposal to confiscate
or outlaw certain firearms but they do not have the authority.
The principle of first disarming the people before full scale
oppression of the people was seen first hand by Reverend Wesley Millen
who, as a missionary, witnessed the communist take-over of China. In his
lectures he would explain how in the first 90 days the communists were
so benevolent, humanitarian and helpful and at the same time labored vigorously
to confiscate all weapons. The people were told peace had arrived and they
would no longer have need of weapons. Then once the people were DISARMED
Reverend Millen said: "Then at the end of ninety days we learned the difference
between theoretical communism and Bolshevik terror."
Americans should be told that history supports the teaching of
Luke 11:21-22. For example, prior to the communist enslavement of Hungary
and Czechoslovakia firearms were taken into police custody to "protect"
the people. On the other hand, consider Afghanistan, a country full of
armed citizens. That country is a modern historical example of this point.
The Communists have never been successful in taking over a country without
first disarming the citizens!
Know The Peace Movement
For What It Is
The American people have been inundated with the so-called peace
movement and Christians have been made to feel such a movement and its
pacifism is equivalent to Christianity. The goal has always been disarmament
and, of course, no one seems to understand that the Zionist Communist idea
of peace is when they have all the guns and the rest have none -- as exists
in the state known as Israel today.
Whenever you view or hear of a so-called "peace demonstration"
think of the following: Radio Moscow commenting on the Easter peace protests
in Britain and throughout Western Europe said: "The fighters for peace...are
united with the peoples of the Soviet Union in mankind's desire for peace."
In 1922 the Bolshevik dictator Lenin told his Commissar for Foreign
Affairs, Yuriy Chicherin: "We Communists have our program...we consider
it our duty to support pacifists in the bourgeois camp...to demoralize
the enemy."
Georgi Dimitrov who became the head of the Comintern said: "The
struggle for peace is the struggle for the victory of Socialism throughout
the world...One peace sympathizer is worth more than a dozen militant Communist."
Janosez, Head of the International Department of the Hungarian
Communist Central Committee said: "The political campaign against the bomb
was one of the most significant and most successful since World War II...for
strengthening anti-imperialist unity."
Victor Zagladin, a top strategist in the Soviet Affairs Dept.,
stated: "There are now 1 � million peace protestors at work on our
behalf in the U.S.A. and Western Europe...the majority of recruits come
from the universities, the clergy and the world of journalism."
Americans should know they need their guns to protect themselves
against government
Should it ever become a de facto, out-of-control, un-Godly, law
perverting, oppressive system. The bigger issue is not hunter's rights
or defense against criminals but against Government itself. To our brainwashed
apathetic people this statement may sound bizarre, even frightening, but
the writings and teachings of our forefathers show it is nothing new.
George Washington said: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;
it is force! It is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The strongest reason for the people to
retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in government."
Noah Webster wrote: "Before a standing army can rule, the people
must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme
power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands
of regular troops..."
"We must realize that our party's most powerful
weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the
dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we
can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will
aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the
whites, we will endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex for their
exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence
in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and
entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry
with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."
(Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912) quoted by Congressman
Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559)
