Lies Christians believe

In our culture, there are many myths that have made their way to the body of Christ. These lies have disarmed and silenced many Christians for the past century. Because they have embraced these, they have retired themselves from demonstrating the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the arts, political sciences, biology, physics, and many other fields. These lies are

1. The end of the world is near. While I do affirm the doctrine of the Second Coming and Christ's any moment return, many Christians are more interested in end-time charts and eshatological pop culture than they seem in proclaiming the Gospel and transforming culture. The way Christians should prepare for Jesus's coming is to do the work he has called us to do. That means evangelizing, Christians being the forerunners in scientific research,being a Godly model in the political field, or being the influential teacher impacting the next generation. We don't know when Christ is going return. It is hidden for a reason. People have made claims about Christ's return for the past 2,000 years. They have all been proven wrong. Let us not get distracted from our mission by doing the work that God requires us to do.

2. Our citizenship is in Heaven, so let us neglect the Earthly activities. Let me explain before you call me a heretic, the way we store treasures in heaven is to invest in raising a Godly family, preaching the Gospel,and through charity. We have embraced this platonic thinking that everything on earth is bad that we ignore the Great Commission and instead hide behind the walls of our churches waiting to be taken up into heaven. It is true that Earth is not our home and this life is temporary, we need to do our role in making the Great Commission a reality. There is so much more to the Christian life than sitting on the sidelines watching the world go down the tubes.

3. Two-kingdom theology. This is where we separate our Christian life from our involvement in politics and the sciences. This view has led Christians to believe that politics and the sciences are neutral when it comes to religious matters. Sad to tell you, the Humanists and evloutionists have taken advantage of this thinking. Evolutionary science is dominant in biology and humanistic thinking is prevailiant in our court rooms, legistures, and executive leaders. There is no such thing as neutrality. Our government is based on the Bible or it is not. Everyone has something called a worldview. This is the lens where we view the world and everything in it. People view the world according to God's word or those man's imaginary religion. This is the reason why our world is in the mess it is in today. We have separated our Christian involvement from the world and the enemies of Christianity have taken advantage of this.

This is my spiel for now. Let me know what you think!

Puritan Culture in Early America

In the olden days there existed a group, who lived out their faith. The reason they came to America was to escape persecution from the established church of England. These people are the puritans and they have left a legacy that is to be studied. Without them, our country as we know it would not have existed and much of the theological thought in Reformed church today would not have developed. Because the puritans have laid the foundation for much in America today, it is important to study their life and culture.

To start off, there is a foundation on which men build their beliefs on. Cornelius Van Til, Westminster Theological Seminary professor and Christian apologist, puts it as, “There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy.”1 Theonomy takes two latin words theos(God) and nomus(law) simply meaning God’s laws. Autonomy means self-law. When it comes to building a society and culture, it all boils down to whether it is going to be build on God’s laws, written in His Word, or is it going to be established based on man made rules and laws. As it pertains to the puritans, their foundation for life and culture was based upon the word of God. It was the puritans who set the example of liberty, ethics, and the spirit of capitalism in our society.

One of the contributions of puritan thought is the rule of law. In his book, Lex Rex, puritan statesman Samuel Rutherford makes the case that the heads are state are under the law. All law is given by God and no one, not even a king, is above the law or a law unto himself. Rutherford writes , “All civil power is immediately from God in its root; in that, 1st, God hath made man a social creature, and one who inclineth to be governed by man, then certainly he must have put this power in man's nature; so are we, by good reason, taught by Aristotle. 2nd, God and nature intendeth the policy and peace of mankind, then must God and nature have given to mankind a power to compass this end; and this must be a power of government.”2 Rutherford was also a commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, which means he was also one of the master minds behind the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Catechisms(Larger and shorter), and the Directory for Public Worship. These documents have made profound impact on American culure and the formation of our country. Lex Rex influenced many of America’s founders such as John Witherspoon and Thomas Jefferson.3 In the Declaration of Independent it states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Law is given by God and not by the state. If the state can give rights, it can also take them away. This was what Rutherford argued and this was what the founding fathers put into practice in our country through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The Westminister Confession of Faith also gave way to the American Revolution. Reformed theology and doctrine was ingrained in the American way of life, “When Joseph Galloway, friend of Franklin and eminent Philadelphian, gave testimony before a committee of the House of Commons in 1779, he was asked what was the underlying cause of the revolution. He replied that it was the activity and influence of the Presbyterians.”4 At one point, a member of Parliament even confessed “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson![referring to John Witherspoon]” The puritans had a different view of government than what most Christians today believe in. They were more open and vocal on political and social issues. In fact, the American revolution would not of happened if they just preached theology and not encourage congregants to get involved in social issues. Men like John Witherspoon, who was a Presbyterian Minister, who was on many committees in the founding of our country and the only pastor to sign the Declaration of Independence. He was a professor to James Madison, the man who was the architect of the U.S. Constitution, at Princeton University. It was men like Witherspoon, pastors and clergy, that made the difference in those who started this country.

The work ethic of the Puritans is another influence they had on American cultures. In the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Confession it states:
The duties required in the eigth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and
justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to every one
his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof;
giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others;
moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods; a
provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are
necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our
condition; a lawful calling, and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits,
and suretiship, or other like engagements; and an endeavour, by all just and
lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of
others, as well as our own.5

This is raising the bar when it comes to vocation and work. In W.K. Jordan’s Philanthropy in England, 1480–1660, he demonstrates that through the proclamation and application of the Gospel actually resulted in private charity in society. 6 Jordan makes note of Puritan preacher Hugh Latimer’s
Sermon “Sermon on the Plough”. In this message, he strongly condemned the rich and nobility for indulging in their wealth while there are less fortunate people dying in the streets of London:
In times past men were full of pity and compassion but now there is no pity, for in London their brother shall die in the streets for cold, he shall lie sick at their door between stock and stock. I cannot tell what to call it, and perish there for hunger, was there any more unmercifulness in Nebo [Jer. 48:1]? I think not.… Repent therefore repent London and remember that the same God lives now that punished Nebo, even the same God and none other, and he will punish sin as well now as he did then, and he will punish the iniquity of London as well as he did then of Nebo.7

Through technological advancement, the Puritans seek to improve the quality of life by starting up schools, training the poor for a better life, and improved public works. They had compassion for the poor and wanted to improve the quality of life for them. Max Weber, in his book, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he makes note of the economical development between Calvinists and Roman Catholics. He wrote, “Examples of the condemnation of the pursuit of money and goods may be gathered without end from Puritan writings, and may be contrasted with the late mediaeval ethical literature , which was much more open-minded on this point. Moreover, these doubts were meant with perfect seriousness; only it is necessary to examine them somewhat more closely in order to understand their true ethical significance and implications. The real moral objection is to relaxation in the security of possession, the enjoyment of wealth with the consequence of idleness and the temptations of the flesh, above all of distraction from the pursuit of a righteous life.”8 In the mind of the Puritan, laziness and idleness from one’s vocation and family reflects his relaxation in seeking the Lord and growing in holiness. Puritans believed that their labor was to foremost to God. When wealth is grown, idleness and all sorts of sins tend to grow along with it.

The puritans eschatological views were different then what most Christians today believe in. Today, most Christians embrace a pre-millennial dispensationalist view that the world is getting worse and that Jesus will return in our lifetimes . He will rapture his people and those left behind will have to endure a seven year tribulation and put up with an end time super villain called the Anti-Christ. There is more to this but I won’t write on it right now. Those who embrace this viewpoint include John MacArthur, Tim LaHaye, Joel Rosenburg, Brannon Howse, and Ray Comfort. The puritans have a different idea in mind when it comes to the second coming. The writings of puritans such as Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, and Samuel Rutherford reflect a postmillennial view of the second coming of Christ. What this means is “Christ will return after a future golden age of prosperity on the earth, during which time the gospel will have been fruitful in all the world, bringing peace and security to all.”9 Also, many bible commentaries written during this time reflected a partial-preterist view of Matthew 24. This means that signs mentioned here are referenced to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., not the end of the world.10
In one of his many writings, Jonathan Edwards wrote “A Humble Attempt.” This piece of writing is on the revival of true religion in latter days:

IT is evident from the Scripture, that there is yet remaining a great advancement of the interest of religion and the kingdom of Christ in this world, by an abundant outpouring of the Spirit of God, far greater and more extensive than ever yet has been. It is certain, that many things, which are spoken concerning a glorious time of the church's enlargement and prosperity in the latter days, have never yet been fulfilled. There has never yet been any propagation and prevalence of religion, in any wise, of that extent and universality which the prophecies represent. It is often foretold and signified, in a great variety of strong expressions, that there should a time come, when all nations, throughout the whole habitable world, should embrace the true religion, and be brought into the church of God.11

It was this philosophy and eschatological viewpoint that motivated the puritans to invest in their families and vocations. They had positive view of the future and started schools such as Harvard and Yale. These puritans were interested in those that will enter the ministry after the previous generation passes away. This was the reason they invested so much in their families. In a view of prophetic inevitibility, it would seem unlikely that parents would provide education to be passed down from future generation. They would seem to be discouraged from making any long term investment because it’s going to get destroyed anyway. The Postmillennial hope is what the puritans embraced.

In closing, there is a lot more that could be mentioned about the puritans. This is only a snapshot of what the puritan lifestyle looked like. Without their investment and their ideas, the United States would not have existed. These people have laid the groundwork for what we enjoy and believe as Christians.





1. Van Til, Cornelius. Christian-Theistic Ethics. P 134.
2. Rutherford, Samuel. Lex Rex. Question 1. http://www.constitution.org/sr/q01.htm
3. Shaeffer, Francis. Christian Manifesto. P 32.
4. Davies, Foundation, p. 227.
6. McDurmon, Joel. “The Lost Reformation.” http://americanvision.org/1902/lost-reformation/
7. Leitmer, Hugh. “Sermon of the Plough.” http://anglicanhistory.org/reformation/latimer/sermons/plough.html
8. Weber, Max. The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/weber/WeberCH5.html
9. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/postmil.html
10. Commentaries by John Gill and Matthew Henry reflect this viewpoint
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/ (John Gill’s commentary)
11. Edwards. Jonathan. “Humble Attempt”. http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/index.html?mainframe=/eschaton/humble_attempt_edwards.html

Economics of the family

In American society today, there are a wide variety of movements that believe they are telling you the truth. There is the feminist movement that is telling you that men are monsters and that women need to be liberated from them. On top of that, you have the homosexual movement saying that all families are equal and that same-sex marriage is normal. For Christians, the truth is found in the Word of God. What God’s Word says is true for all times and places. This is true when it comes to marriage and the family. Because practicing marriage and family life from the Bible works, strong societies, churches and families are produced.
To start, we need to look at what the Bible says when it comes to matters such as marriage and family life. As we all know, God’s providential design includes man and woman. The man is the representative of Christ by leading his wife and children. 1 Corinthians 11:3 says that “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Man is reflecting Christ by leading his family. This relationship reflects the one between Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:22-23). The wife is made to be a helper and a companion to her husband. Genesis 2:18 says, “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’” Woman also represents her husband to her children and the world. Because the husband is the head and the woman represents, the woman submits to her husband’s leadership.
With a biblical basis for masculinity and feminity, it creates a stronger society. French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville noticed a major difference between America’s families and those from Europe;
"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in
America, or where conjugal happiness is more or worthily appreciated. In Europe, almost all the
Disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds
And legitimate pleasure of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and
Fluctuating desires. Agitated by the passions that frequently disturb the dwelling, the European
Is galled by obedience which the legislative powers of the state exact. But when the American
retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds it the image of order
and peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm…"1
America, which was established on a Christian worldview, valued the roles given to man and woman. As a result, the home was a place of peace and joy. In America’s past, there has been a strong interesting in protecting this relationship. It offers many benefits that no other relationship or institution can give. The first is that children are better off being raised by a married couple than a homosexual couple or by a parent with multiple partners. Research has shown that a child that lives with both of his parents has a higher achievement in education. Sandra Jofferth, researcher for the journal Demography, has shown that children who live in intact families score the highest on cognitive achievement tests and have the lowest rate on behavior issues.2 In early American history, education was handled by the parents and not by the state(Through the public school system). It has been demonstrated that “colonial mothers often achieved more than our modern-day elementary schools with their federally-funded programs and education specialists. These colonial mothers used simple, time-tested methods of instruction mixed with plain, old-fashioned hard work. Children were not ruined by educational experiments developed in the ivory towers of academe.”3 Without a penny of one’s tax dollars, children have been able to read how to read from their mama because she was practicing her Biblical as a wife and a mother . Her husband was working providing and protecting the family giving her the chance to work with the children. Another advantage to a solid family is that children are far less likely to commit crime. The Heritage Foundation has noted that the rise in crime is parallel to the rise of single mother families and the rate of violent crimes by teenagers is proportional to the number of families abandoned by their dad. On the other hand, they have noted that the mother’s affection for her children has contributed to keeping kids out of crime and the father’s authority and involvement in the lives of his kids keeps them always from crime.4 When the family is operating within its proper realms(As defined by Scripture), the advantages work.
The breakdown of the family leads to the collapse of nations and societies. When Rome fell, one of the subtle moves that surrounded its demise is the breakdown of the family structure. Richard Saller, Roman historian and history professor, writes, “According to the Roman writers of the first century BCE and first century CE, divorce became increasingly frequent after 200 BCE, initiated easily by the husband or the wife. In addition, wives had their own property, which they could sell, give away or bequeath as they liked. As a result, women became more liberated and less dependent on their husbands.”5 The men were abdicating their authority as head of the household and women were more concerned about wealth and their beauty than their families. It is the equivalent to modern day feminism and the destruction of traditional feminity. During that time, sons showed deep disrespect for their fathers and pursued fleeting pleasures such as women and wine. What this eventually led to was the social upheaval and the civil wars that brought the Roman Republic to an end.6 The Roman historian Polybius has made reference to rampant homosexuality among the upper class and was accepted as entertainment. He writes, “Polybius was on the one hand very happy to see the enthusiasm and affection of the young man, yet was embarrassed when he reflected on the high position of the family and the wealth of its members. However, after this mutual explanation the young man never left his side, and preferred his society to anything else. From that time onwards continuing in the actual conduct of life to give proof to each other of their worth, they came to regard each other with an affection like that of father and son or near relations.”7 Does this sound familiar? Yes, many of these elements are present in America today. According to Carle Zimmerman, author of Family and Civilization, there are eight patterns that are indictors that a nation is declining. They are; the breakdown of marriage and an increase in divorce, traditional marriage becomes meaningless, feminism rises, an increasing disrespect for parents and authority, the youth becomes delinquent and rebellious, people in traditional marriages adamantly refuse their family responsibilities, a widespread acceptance of homosexuality and other sexual perversions, and a increasing public acceptance of adultery.8 Those elements were present in Rome and they are in the United States today. Let us do our part to undo this trend and let America once again be a light and a symbol of hope and freedom to the world.
The family unit is a threat to totalitarian and oppressive governments. When the Communists took over Russia one of the first items on their agenda was to destroy the traditional family. In 1917, the Council of People’s Commissars legalized no-fault divorce. Fellow Marxist Alexandra Kollontai writes, “The decree of the Council of People’s Commissars issued on 18 December 1917 means that divorce is, no longer a luxury that only the rich can afford; henceforth, a working woman will not have to petition for months or even for years to secure the right to live separately from a husband who beats her and makes her life a misery with his drunkenness and uncouth behaviour. Divorce by mutual agreement now takes no more than a week or two to obtain. Women who are unhappy in their married life welcome this easy divorce.”9 When divorce is legalized beyond its original intentions(Which are in case of abuse and spousal unfaithful), marriage no longer has protection it needs. One can just file out a piece of paper and the deal is done. No reasons for the divorce are required. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx has written, quite vocally, about the family. He writes, “On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.”10 What Marx believes in was that the family is rooted in the concept of private property. Because the traditional family can support itself, oppressive governments view this as a threat to their agenda of welfare and socialism. It does not depend on the government for its livelihood and survival. Even the idea that families can teach their own children is also a threat because it builds loyalty to the church and family, not the state. The family teaches values that are contrary to what the “elites” and the Party want to indoctrinate children in. James Bales, author of Communism: Its Faith and Fallacies,writes, “Although communists in Russia have had to retreat from efforts to destory the family, they are endeavoring through their educational system, including the nurseries, to build loyalty to the Party rather than the home.”11 They want the unconditional obedience from the masses and the family is one obstacle in the way.
Finally, Americans need to realize that this great and mighty country is heading downhill like Rome was. If the father/husband of the family is out of the picture, the state replaces him as the provider and protector. As a result, welfare programs develop to counterfeit what the head of the household can do. In Rome, what ultimately brought the Republic down were massive taxation, free food and entertainment, and deep debt. America is heading towards the same direction with government bailouts, progressive taxation/distribution of wealth, and many entitlements. A congressional reports states that “No thought was given to the possibility that public assistance predicated on the absence of a male head of household might lead to an increase in the number of such families. If you subsidize something, usually you get more of it, and this has been the case with the single parent families and the welfare system. We believe the evidence supports two propositions: (1) Welfare has increased the incidence of single parent families and contributed to the decline in traditional families (two married parents living together with their children); and (2) Welfare has contributed to illegitimate babies being produced to obtain or increase public assistance payments.”12 Once the family is on the decline, more and more people will get on government welfare. This trend is very difficult to reverse and it can end very violently if government tries to undo entitlement programs. Let us not repeat history and not go down the road that ultimately leads to destruction.
In closing, the family provides benefits that no other institution or relationship can counterfeit. History tells us that when alternatives to the Biblical family are accepted in society, the consequences lead to ruin and chaos. America needs to learn from the past and escape the judgment that God will use on our society for our sin. The destruction of traditional marriage and the exaltation of homosexuality will ultimately lead to catastrophic ruin. Don’t be like Rome, America, please repent and come back to the One who is looking down in love, ready to discipline us if we continue in our corrupt ways.


1. DeTocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. 1:315
2.
3. Peterson, Robert. “Education in Colonial America”. The Freeman Online. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/education-in-colonial-america/
4.Fagan, Patrick. “The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community”. The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime
5. Saller, Richard. “Family Values in Ancient Rome”. University of Chicago Library Digital Collections. http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777121908/
6. ibid
7. Polybius XXXI.25.5
8. Biggs, Charles. “Parallels between the fall of Rome and modern America”. Tulsa Beacon. http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=224
9. http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm
10. Marx, Karl. Communist Manifesto.
11. Bales, James. Communsim: it faith and fallacies
12. http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-5/vg-5.htm

Orwell and the Revolution

Fictional literature has been influential on the political and sociological fields within the past century. For example, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle started a catalyst that led to the formation of what is today called the Food and Drug Administration. There were authors on a lesser scale that had a great impact on the political landscape of America and the world. One of those authors was George Orwell. George Orwell was one of the most influential English writers within the past century. His works included Animal Farm and 1984. Because George Orwell wrote fiction on controversial political issues, his fictional writings promoted a Marxist leaning viewpoint that that supported the working class from oppression by a totalitarian government and today he has influenced American politics.
To start, George Orwell’s background must be studied. George Orwell was a self-declared socialist. Basic information about Orwell was that his real name was Eric Blair, he was born in England, and wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. George Orwell wrote commentaries on the political issues of the day and even wrote book reviews. More controversial issues about Orwell included who his influences were and whether or not he had Marxist leanings. When it comes to these issues, there is evidence the Orwell was a “literary Trotskyist” (Not a Leninist or Stalinist Marxist) and that this was the viewpoint advocated in his fictional writings.What are some evidences that literary Marxism was the view promoted by Orwell? In his novel 1984, Orwell wrote about the dangers of totalitarianism while at the same time promoting socialism. Philip Bounds, author of the book Orwell and Marxism, wrote, “Orwell chose to skewer the authoritarian strain in modern socialism not by writing directly about the USSR but by conjuring a dystopian fantasy in which Britain is governed by a socialist dictatorship that takes Stalin’s methods to new extremes”( 137). What this means was that Orwell wanted to write about the problems of totalitarianism not by writing about the USSR, but by writing a novel about it if it were to happen in Great Britain. Orwell was known to criticize Stalin as evident in Animal Farm and 1984. Bounds continued on to say that Orwell’s influences in the novel included “several dystopian novels (e.g. The Iron Heel by Jack London and We by Yevgeny Zamiatin), James Burnham’s controversial treatises on the so-called ‘managerial society’ and a range of obscure pamphlets by American Trotskyists. We also know that Orwell derived a lot of inspiration simply from observing the behaviour of his peers on the left”( 138) James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution states that society will not be dominated by capitalists, but by cooperate leaders and government bureaucrats (Aplers 256). This had a profound impact on Orwell. Orwell wrote on Burnham’s theories;
'All historical changes finally boil down to the replacement of one ruling class by another.
All talk about democracy, liberty, equality, fraternity, all revolutionary movements, all vision
of utopia, or ‘the classless society’, or ‘the kingdom of Heaven on Earth’, are all humbug( Not necessarily conscious humbug) covering the ambitions of some new class which is elbowing its way to power…
The new ‘managerial’ societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states,
but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in Europe, Asia and
America. These super states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining
uncaptured portions of the earth, but will be unable to conquer one another completely. (qtd. in Harris par.35)
This sounds a lot like Orwell’s 1984 where the world is divided up into three super-states; Oceania( Which consisted of Great Britain, North America, and Australia), Eurasia( the Soviet Union and Europe), and Eastasia(China, Japan, Korea). As in the novel, they fight each other and cannot completely conquer one another. This is what George Orwell feared would happen. These three super nations in Orwell’s novel were ruled by an elite party which resembles the managers described in Burnham’s writings( Alpers 288). This is where America is heading if the good people do not speak out.
What are other influences on Orwell? During the 1940s, George Orwell contributed to a Newspaper called the Partisan Review. John Newsinger, history professor at Bath Spa University in England, wrote that the Partisan Review was “committed to the viewpoint of 'the revolutionary working class' and to 'defence of the Soviet Union'”(2). While George Orwell did not agree fully with this newspaper, he had high hopes that a revolutionary crisis was imminent and that a socialist transformation of Britain was needed to win World War II(Newsinger 5). There were some things he did agree on with Marxism and things he did not agree. While
fighting in the Spanish Civil War, he developed a view of revolutionary socialism and an anti-Soviet Union political view (Newsinger 24). John Newsinger summarizes Orwell’s position well;
But Orwell's contributions to Partisan Review were those of a 'literary Trotskyist', a person
influenced by revolutionary socialist ideas and arguments, but always drawing his own
conclusions. He always maintained a critical and independent position, at the same time as
contributing to and being influenced by debates on the American Far Left, as for example
in his attitude towards the war and debates on the class nature of the Soviet Union.(25)George Orwell was influenced by many revolutionary ideas, but took a step back from fully accepting Communism in the Soviet Union and in many other countries. He was a Marxist in a literary sense.
How does this show he was for the working class? There have been other forms of Marxism that Orwell did not identify with. These variations of Marxism included that of Stalin, Lenin, and the governmental oppression that the Former Soviet Union brought. The type of Marxism Orwell had leaning towards was that of Leon Trotsky. Trotsky led the movement to a Communist state in the Soviet Union and was exiled for criticizing that Communist rule created a new class division; one between the workers and party officials called the Apparatchiks (Tansey and Jackson 80). In other words, it is the working class versus the government. George Orwell picked up on this in his novel Animal Farm. In this novel he warned about totalitarian and the dangers of it. He formulated the laws of animalism, including the one that all animals are equal but some animals have more equality than others. This rule was from Trotsky’s critique of the Soviet Union because it creates another class distinction in a society. The pigs
enjoyed a higher standard of living versus the rest of the animals. Thus, the ‘working class’ was being oppressed by the pigs. Rather than being helped to achieve utopia, a new division is set up between the state and the workers. Even though Orwell did not accept Trotsky’s views fully, Orwell accepted his premise that a new class division was caused by Stalin and his government. The argument is that Orwell had leanings towards Trotsky, but did not necessarily accept his views.
What are the results of Orwell’s fictional writings on the political landscape? Within the past few years there emerged something called the tea party. What these people believe is a stance against “big government” and healthcare reform. An article from the American Spectator used the parallel between Orwell’s Animal Farm and Representative Giffords and “Obamacare” with the famous phrase that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Political commentator Kevin Lord says this idea is “exactly the main topic following the new GOP-controlled House repeal of ObamaCare -- and the Senate's refusal to even discuss the issue”(par.10). What that means is if congresswoman Giffords is not a Representative, would she be receiving under healthcare reform than if she is an ordinary citizen? The answer would be no. This idea of some people “being more equal to others” just creates another class division of its own; the ruling elite and ordinary citizen. What it boils down to is that the government officials are given special rights that are not given to ordinary citizens. It appears that the government has converted into the bourgeoisie, oppressing its citizens and workers through massive taxation and government officials enjoying a higher standard of living. This is the flaw in Marxism. For true Marxism to work, the governing officials must be on the same level as the people. Conservatives today believe that big government is the bourgeoisie while the average citizens are considered the proletariat.
Today in American society, government officials are trying everything they can to penalize people for any violation of law or code. This ranges from issues such as running a red light to monitoring and censoring the internet. In Great Britain, there has been an experiment going on with closed-circuit television cameras. Jamie Malanowski, writer for Washington Weekly reporting on these cameras and the topic of “Big brother”, believes that the “next generation of cameras will be far more capable; planners are experimenting with cameras that have facial recognition software and voice recognition capability, so observers can identify when people are getting angry or are using words associated with criminal activity”(par.19). If this is the case, the U.S. government will be like “Big Brother” in Orwell’s novel 1984.It will be like the managerial society that Orwell predicted over sixty years ago. It creates a class division between the government and the people. Orwell has been prophesying that this will happen and it is coming true.
In closing, George Orwell’s leaning towards Trotskyian Marxism continues to impact the political debate today. Whether that would be the discussion of big government from the Tea Partiers to government surveillance, Orwell has been influencing many through his novels 1984 and Animal Farm. The topics of Stalinist tactics and the class division between the government and the people would have taken a different turn if it were not for these two novels.



Alpers, Benjamin Leontief. Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning
The Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
NetLibrary .Web. 4 April 2011.
Bounds, Philip. Orwell and Marxism: the Political and Cultural Thinking of George Orwell.
London: New York I.B. Tauris, 2009. NetLibrary. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.
Harris, Robert. “60 years after Orwell wrote 1984 and was destroyed by the book, a chilling
reminder that his sinister vision is almost reality.”Daily Mail 13 June 2009: n.pag. Daily
Mail. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.
Lord, Jeffrey. “Animal Farm Comes to Arizona.” American Spectator. American Spectator.
n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011
Malanowski, Jamie. “Big Brother.” Washington Monthly. Nov. 2009: 11-16. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 4 April 2011.
Newsinger, John. “The American Connection: George Orwell ‘literary Trotskyism’ and the New
York Intellectuals.” Labour History Review 64.1 (1999): 23-43. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 3 April 2011.
Tansey, Stephen and Nigel Jackson. Politics: the Basics. New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge,
2008. NetLibrary. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

On Planned Parenthood

It has been awhile since I've posted on here. Here is an article I wrote for SOAR(Students Organized for An American Revival). It can be viewed here at http://www.constitutionalteens.org/articles/our-articles/on-planned-parent%20/

Once upon a time there originated an idea. This idea started when people started believing that they are not made in the Image of God and started believing they are more like the animals, not being accountable to God for his actions. The intellectuals of the Enlightenment era worked to eliminate God and his redeeming work through Jesus Christ out of the story of man (or history). The ideas were that there was a need to get rid of weak and unwanted people. This is where Planned Parenthood came in. Because Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of abortions today, it is important that there is an examination of its origins.

To lay the foundation for the origins of Planned Parenthood, it would be a good idea to look at the historical background of what formed the founders’ ideas. From the 1600s-1800 was a time period known as the enlightenment. It was during this time that philosophies such as deism, empiricism (Belief that all knowledge comes by the senses), and the exaltation of reason over Scripture developed. A few ideas that arose from this era were Malthusian and social Darwinism. Malthusian was the concept that population was grown exponentially while food was grown arithmetically. Thus, poverty and hunger were just evidences of an overpopulation problem. What was the solution? Thomas Malthus wrote, “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns, we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”1 What the followers of Malthus believed was that those deemed “unfit” were to be eliminated. On the other hand there was social Darwinism. In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote a book called Origin of Species which laid the foundation for the Darwinian Revolution. A man named Herbert Spencer applied Darwin’s principles to every area of life including politics and economics. It was he, not Darwin, who coined the term “Survival of the fittest.” It is by natural selection and survival of the fittest that the best species survive. All other species die. To pave the way for “proper evolution”, people were encouraged to not help the poor, eliminate charity, and take out the ‘human weeds’. Adolf Hitler applied this idea to Nazi Germany, the leaders of the Former Soviet Union did this, and the sterilization/eugenics movement was based on this.

How were ideas connected with Planned Parenthood? The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, clearly embraced the ideas of Darwinism and Malthusian. Author George Grant wrote, “She was thoroughly convinced that the ‘inferior races’ were in fact ‘human weeds’ and a ‘menace to civilization.’ She believed that ‘social regeneration’ would only be possible as the ‘sinister forces of the hoards of irresponsibility and imbecility’ were repulsed. She accepted the Malthusian notion that organized Christian charity to ethnic minorities and the poor were a ‘symptom of a malignant social disease’ because it encouraged the prolificacy of ‘defective, delinquents, and dependents.’” 2 David Noebel, a leading expert in Christian worldview, has stated that Sanger’s book, Pivots of Civilization, was one of the first to advocate Malthusian and eugenics.3 She called for the elimination of “human weeds” and the sterilization of those that are deemed “genetically inferior”. According to the Planned Parenthood site, Sanger’s organization “provides[d] contraceptive advice to poor, immigrant women, some of whom line up hours before the doors open.”4 Do you see who they were targeting? They were targeting poor immigrant minorities who were the source of humanity’s problems. It was the minorities such as ‘negroes’, the poor, the handicaps, and those with large families that were considered weeds. They were the ones who put an unnecessary burden on society. These people were an “inferior races”. Sanger appeared to be angry towards large families. She wrote in her book, Women and the New Race, that “Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”5 This was population control in its finest. This was central to her philosophy, this was central to Planned Parenthood.

How does Planned Parenthood play out in today’s world? In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the practice of abortion Constitutional under the 14th Amendment. How did this happen? Planned Parenthood has been involved in this from the very beginning. As the result of the rise of the feminist movement within the past century, many women have argued for “equal” social status with men. The feminists were the ones who argued for women wanting to be in the military. The feminists were the ones who gave up their life of being a stay-at-home wife and mother to climb the corporate ladder. It was they who were the ones who advocated for birth control and abortion. One feminist writer even said that “a housewife is an illegitimate profession…the choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be”6Margaret Sanger was one of the original feminists as shown with her advocacy of birth control. Planned Parenthood from the beginning was a champion for “Women’s rights”. Besides radical feminism, population control is in the works in the modern day world. In China, there is a brutal one-child only policy that is in affect there. This country has many problems including “massive forced abortions, sterilizations and other abuses coming as a result of its one-child policy.”7 Planned Parenthood has stated that China’s policy is a model of efficiency for the rest of the world. Planned Parenthood has from the beginning targeted minorities; a lot of them have been deemed “unfit” and needed to be eliminated. Recently a New York Times article has reported that the abortion rate in New York City for African-Americans is at an alarming sixty percent.8 What this means is that more babies from African-American families are being aborted than they are being born. In case you did not know, the majority of abortion clinics are located in minority communities.9 What does this have to say about Sanger and her intention to eliminate “human weeds” and the unfit? In the 1930s, Margaret Sanger started something called the “Negro Project” whose original purpose was to reduce the birth of African-American children.10 Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has stated that “If the Dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is to live, our babies must live. Our mothers must choose life. If we refuse to answer the cry of mercy from the unborn, and ignore the suffering of the mothers, then we are signing our own death warrants.”11 The ideas that minorities are unwanted simply needs to stop. It has been demonstrated throughout history how this type of thinking has been carried out. Hitler carried it out and has killed over six million people doing so. Planned Parenthood carries it out today and kills tens of millions of babies every year doing so. The original intentions of Planned Parenthood have been the goals of this group since the very beginning and they continue to the present.

In closing, when God is eliminated from the hearts and minds of man, he will come up with many bizarre ideas that can devastate the lives of millions. Malthusian and Darwinian are perfect examples of such thinking. Abortion is part of that thinking. Instead of being fruitful and reproducing, the Darwinist mandate is “Be the strongest and kill the weakest.” Abortion is really just killing unwanted babies. May we pray that this massacre can be exposed and stopped at once. If man believes he is not made in the image of God, then he thinks he does not have to be accountable to God for his actions.

__________________

1. Cited in George Grant’s Third Time Around: A History of the Pro-Life Movement from the First Century to the Present. Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Wyatt, 1991. Print. 122

2. ibid.123

3. Noebel, David. “Margaret Sanger: Founder of Planned Parenthood and Heroine of the Secular Humanists.” Worldview Weekend. N.d. Web. 17 Jan 2011. http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/print.php?&ArticleID=939

4. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/history-and-successes.htm

5. Black, Edwin. War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign To Create A Master Race. New York: Thunder Mouth Press, 2004. Print. 127

6. quoted in David Kupelian’s The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell us Corruption Disguised As Freedom.Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, 2005. Print. 112.

7.Ertelt, Steve. “President Hu Denies China has Forced Abortion Policy.” LifeNews.com. 20 Jan 2011. Web. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/20/president-hu-denies-china-has-forced-abortion-policy/

8. Vitello, George. “Religious Leaders Call for New Efforts to Lower the City’s Abortion Rate.” New York Times. 16 Jan 2011

9. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/

10. Piper, John. When Abortion is Racism. 21 Jan 2007. Web. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/when-is-abortion-racism

11. ibid.

Danger in a Virtual World

In modern society, people have access to many things their parents and grandparents would have never been able to comprehend. With progress come many of its advantages and disadvantages. Today, the quality of healthcare has improved, computers have helped many do their jobs more efficiently and quickly, and people have access to mobile phones that can send a text message across the globe in seconds. Along with progress are many new evils such as identity thief, cyber warfare, and computer viruses. In this day and age, online security is of paramount importance. However, people do need to take responsibility for protecting their own private information on the internet. Because online privacy is an important right, the U.S. government should back away from unnecessary monitoring of the internet and let the people be responsible for their private, personal information.
To start off, what needs to be defined is what constitutes legitimate reasons why government must regulate the internet and why they should not. The first reason is to protect America’s databases that are important for national security. According to David Lambrecht, journalist with the St. Louis Dispatch-Post, the Pentagon databases are attacked at least 250,000 times an hour, which sums up to six million attacks a day. These attackers range from computer hackers to foreign intelligence agencies from around the globe (A1). This is a matter of national security. The government needs to regulate their own networks because countries such as Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China could be attempting to access classified information. This is the reason why the government must take down sites such as wikileaks. The hosts of that site have betrayed America by putting classified information out in the open where foreign intelligence agencies and terrorist groups can access that information within a few clicks of a mouse. The government has the right and responsibility to regulate the internet when it comes to classified documents.
Another reason to regulate the internet is to fight against internet crimes. These include computer hackers, cyber-terrorists, and those who sell child pornography. Jaak Aaviksoo, Minister of Defense in Estonia, said concerning a cyber-terrorist attack in Estonia, “Taking into account the tensions around the relocation of the monument and the street riots that broke out afterwards, the people who were news-thirsty could not get access to online news. At the same time, the bank transactions that in Estonia to more than 90 percent are carried out via Internet were not possible”(29). These are real threats to society. Aaviksoo stated that “Most of the attacks were carried out against Estonian governmental websites and servers, but also against Estonian news portals, against two biggest banks in Estonia, and later all of the other commercial banks as well as several Internet service providers and telecoms”(29). These are things that a society is dependent on. News is transmitted online in modern day society and banks now do their business on the internet. If the internet is attacked, it can have a major impact on governments and economies of across the globe. The government should have regulation over the internet to make sure things like this do not happen.
There are also legitimate concerns about the government controlling the internet. When a government is given a little more control over something, it only wants more control. This is the case of what happened in countries such as Iran, China, and the former Soviet Union. Farnaz Fassibi, writer for the Wall Street Journal, said concerning Iran, “Tracking internet crimes—from political dissent to pornography—has been a priority of the regime” (A1)In countries such as Iran, they just don’t track cyber-terrorists or computer hackers, they track down those who do not agree with their government officials. If the U.S. does the same thing, it would be a clear violation of freedom of speech in the United States. Daniel Calingaert, writer for the Policy Review, stated that "It is increasingly focused on impeding the spread of domestically generated content that authoritarian regimes find objectionable, such as news about government incompetence or online discussions about abuses of power, and obstructing the organization of political opposition,internet censorship and surveillance are used first and foremost by authoritarian regimes to silence their domestic critics and to prevent the emergence of political alternatives."(67) Iran and China are examples of those who censor content that criticizes their imperfect government and other viewpoints. There has never existed a perfect and, unless mankind learns to not disagree, there will never be one. That is just a fact of reality.
Another reason not to censor the internet is for the purpose of privacy. There is a lot more information out in the open then one thinks. For example, a major data broker, ChoicePoint, sold personal information of many people who used their services. According to USA Today reporters Jon Swartz and Byron Acohido, the company “sold sensitive information for at least 166,000 people to a Nigerian con artist posing as a debt collector”(par.2) What this means is that people need to be responsible where they put their private information. Choices have consequences. Scams are prevalence in American society and the American people need to be on the defensive end making sure they are not being cheated out of their money. Keeping the public educated on these issues and keeping people accountable concerning their personal information will be the only ways that true privacy will work. Reid Goldsborough, writer for Teacher Librarian, writes “One rule of thumb is that you should feel free to say what you think, but you should also think before you say it. No matter how careful you are, it is unavoidable that some degree of personal privacy must be compromised in our increasingly interconnected and digitized society” (par.8). We have freedom of speech. We must use it wisely. The internet would not need much regulation if people can regulate themselves and parents keep an eye out on what their children view on the internet. When it comes to regulating the internet, one needs to practice what is called “self-regulation.” Joe Cannataci and Jeanne Bonnici, who were involved in research at Law and Information Technology Research Unit at Malta University, defines it as that a person who enforces the rules and laws himself (3). America’s citizens need to follow a set of rules. Otherwise, the government will have to do it and it will be cumbersome. One of the ways that families can practice “self-regulation” is to monitor their children on the internet is using an online filter. If government chooses what is best for America’s children, they, not the parents, have become the ones raising them and becoming the ultimate teachers of children. Chris Hunter, a Ph.D candidate, wrote about an organization called the Bertelsmann Foundation who proposed a method ten years ago where parents could voluntarily rate content and filter a web site if they do not approve of a particular site (2). The benefit of having an online filter is that it gives parents control over what their children see on the internet. It takes the burden off the government from passing content regulation laws and giving that authority to the parents. Having one can also limit what one can view himself. If one does not like a website, then he can filter it or simply not view it. Why waste time and taxpayer money filing lawsuits on sites a few people find offensive? The money used in lawsuits like these needs to go off towards paying the national debt and building up America’s defenses, not to the emotional whim of a few people. If wants to see more freedom on the internet in America, it must be given to the people.
With a clear definition of what the government can and cannot regulate on the internet, how can the U.S. government deal with issues such as cyber terrorism and computer hackers? As anyone who has common sense knows, these are moral wrongs in society. Good people just do not do those things. The problem America has today is that it is not prepared to fight in a cyber war. Former national intelligence director Michael McConnell said, “’If the nation went to war today in a cyberwar, we would lose. We're the most vulnerable. We're the most connected. We have the most to lose’”(qtd. In Rockefeller and Snowe A15). What would happen if a virtual assault from a cyber-terrorist occurred? The United States would experience something similar to what happened in Estonia where business transactions will be down and no one can contact anyone else through e-mail or Facebook. The majority of Americans are dependent on computers and the internet. If the U.S. is attacked, we will not be prepared for it. U.S. Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe said, “These adversaries target our identities, our money, our businesses, our intellectual property, and our national security secrets. They often succeed. What's more, they have the potential to disrupt or disable vital information networks, which could cause catastrophic economic loss and social havoc. We are not prepared” (A15). These are real threats the government cannot just ignore in the name of privacy. When there is sufficient evidence that a man is plotting an attack, federal agents should attain a warrant (required under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and arrest that individual. Then, agents are allowed to check his cell phone, computer, or anything relevant that can help them find any more information about the attack. If the government can develop a way to prevent cyber-terrorist attacks without compromising an innocent citizen’s privacy, that would be a step in the right direction.
What is the difference between fighting enemies based on the damage they can do economically and socially and those that simply want their voices to be heard? In 2009, the Islamic Republic of Iran held elections. After the results were announced, many citizens went to the streets and protested. How did the Iranian government respond to this? The government officials soon realized that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter were circulating information that rallied citizens across Iran and around the world against the regime. In response to this, the government slowed down internet connection. For many Iranians, it took them a half-hour to simply access an e-mail inbox. Facebook, Twitter and Youtube were banned from the country (Fassihi A1). This is an example of how far leaders will get to silence their critics. On the other hand, securities measures are needed to defend America’s networks from cyber-terrorists who want to do damage to this country. The CIA and the NSA cannot censor critics of the nation’s government leaders. This would violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and would not solve the problem of criminal hackers and cyber-terrorists with an agenda. The government censorhip of the internet violates the free speech rights of its citizens. An article from Policy Review says, “Internet censorship, for example, infringes on the rights of a great many citizens as content producers, not only as consumers, and online survallience allows authorities to monitor personal communications as well as to track what citizens read”(Calingaert 15). The big difference is that the CIA and NSA need to spend their time tracking down people such as Osama Bin Laden and other wanted fugitives, not spying on a conservative news writer in Washington, DC. If someone has written a critique of the U.S. government, the government needs to let it go. Freedom of speech prevails in a truly democratic society like the United States.
In closing, providing freedom of speech and freedom of what people want to view can bring a greater amount of freedom to America. The government should regulate the internet to protect it from criminal hackers and cyber-terrorists. They should never regulate it against different political views, pornography, or material people find offensive. It is the job of the individual to determine what he wants to write and view. If he does not like a site, then he should not view it. Parents have the responsibility to monitor what their children view on the internet. The less regulation on the internet, the more freedom of expression and speech there will be in America.





Works Cited
Aaviksoo, Jaak.”Cyber-Terrorism.” Vital Speeches of the Day 74.1(2008): 28-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2010.
Calingaert, Daniel. “Authoritarianism vs. the internet.”Policy Review. 160(2010):63-75. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
Cannataci, Joseph and Jeanne Bonnici. “Can Self-Regulation satisfy the transnational requisite of Successul Internet Regulation?” BILETA. British & Irish Law, Education, and technology Association. 5-6 April 2002. Web.29 Oct. 2010
Fassihi, Farnaz. "Iranian Crackdown Goes Global." Wall Street Journal 03 Dec. 2009: A1. SIRS Researcher. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
Goldsborough, Reid. “Are you Protecting Your Online Privacy.” Teacher Librarian. 37.5 (2010): 72.Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Hunter, Christopher D. “Negotiating the Global Internet Rating and Filtering System: Opposing Views of the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Self-regulation of Internet Content Proposal.” CFP2000.Computers, Freedom, and Privacy 2000 Conference. n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Lambrecht, Bill. “Cyber Security Becomes Priority.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch 13 Jun. 2010: A1. SIRS Researcher. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
Rockefeller, Jay, and Olmypia Snowe. “Now is the Time to Prepare for Cyber war”. Wall Street Journal 2 April 2010: A15.SIRS Researcher. Web. 03 Nov 2010.
Swartz, Jon, and Byron Acohido. “Who’s Guarding your Data in the Cybervault?” USA Today 1 April.2007: n.pag. SIRS Reseacher. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.

The Real Solution to America's Problems

If you are a Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh fan, this article may offend you. It will offend you because those three men have not offered the real solution to what is really going on in America. The solution is not voting out all the Democrats, organizing Tea Party rallies, or condemning President Obama and his policies all day long. The problem goes deeper then that. The thing is, most Conservative commentators do not even know what the problem is. It is not America's move towards Socialism, Facaism, and Communism. These are symptoms of the problem but they are not the problem itself. The problem is that people like you and me are sinners. The solution is found in the Cross of Jesus Christ. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can change America. Glenn Beck can't do it, Sarah Palin can't do it, nor can Michele Bachmann. We can vote out politicians all day long, but that will not deal with the issues of sin and the heart. You cannot change a country from the tops down. It must start with people like you and me, examining our own hearts and laying down our sins at the foot of the Cross. Then we must be diligent to proclaim the Gospel to others. The Church has substituted the Gospel for political activism. Oh Lord have mercy on us. We must pray that there will be laborers in the fields. When people began to realize their sinfulness before a holy God that will began to see change America. Barack Obama cannot bring that kind of change, it can only come by the Lord granting us His mercy. Let us pray that America will come to repentance and return to God this country was dedicated to.