Due to rebellion against God, naive belief in the Idea of Progress, and support for big government policies, the globalist establishment of liberal elites seeks to gradually but steadily do away with sovereignty and merge the world into a single unified political organization. In the process, they and the organizations they affiliate with either attack the notion of sovereignty or redefine it for their own purposes.
Contrary to the claims of some naive or ill-intentioned critics, the War on Sovereignty is not some "conspiracy theory" that its promoters are malevolently plotting in secret as a short-term project. In reality, liberals and globalists see it as a benign and long-term goal openly grounded upon one of the basic philosophical views accepted in contemporary mainstream society.
The founding fathers of the United States cared deeply about preserving national sovereignty, since a sovereign U.S. government would serve the American people alone and protect their unalienable rights, and let them govern themselves. In fact, they chose to declare independence because Britain was not respecting their right to self-government. In his farewell address in September 1796, George Washington warned his fellow Americans against becoming entangled in international treaties and alliances, as he knew it would end American sovereignty:
“...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils...
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
(The Federalist) For centuries, the politics of Western nations have been characterized by a struggle between two antithetical visions of world order: an order of free and independent nations, each pursuing the political good in accordance with its own traditions and understanding; and an order of peoples united under a single regime of law, promulgated and maintained by a single supranational authority.
In recent generations, the first vision has been represented by nations such as India, Israel, Japan, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland—and of course by Britain, in the wake of its turn toward independence. The second vision is held by much of the leadership of the European Union, which reaffirmed its commitment to the concept of an “ever closer union” of peoples in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, and has proceeded since then to introduce EU laws and currency into most member nations, as well as requiring the free movement of populations among most member states.
The United States, committed from its founding to the ideal of an independent national state, was for the most part able to maintain this character until the Second World War. But in the face of competition with the Soviet Union, and especially after the end of the Cold War, it has deviated from this model of national independence and has increasingly sought the establishment of a worldwide regime of law that would be enforced upon all nations by means of American power.
Watch: Donald Trump Is Anti-Global Government
The conflict between these two visions of the best political order is as old as the West itself. The idea that the political order should be based on independent nations was an important feature of ancient Israelite thought as reflected in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). And although Western civilization, for most of its history, has been dominated by dreams of universal empire, the presence of the Bible at the heart of this civilization has ensured that the idea of the self-determining, independent nation would be revived time and again.
Why is the Bible so concerned with the independence of nations?
The only thing he would be guilty of is trying to Make America Great Again!
WATCH: Trump Delivers Deadly Wound to The Beast
But there is plenty of evidence that Obama, Hillary, Eric Holder, and the rest of the Deep State actors have committed treason against America. Every act they’ve done is against America. Nothing they’ve done was for the benefit of America. They are Globalists “First” and they’ve proven that their loyalty is to a Global Government and not to America or her Constitution. President Trump was right when he ‘retweeted’ the tweet below. When are the trials for treason against America going to begin? American Patriots want to see justice!
Is President Trump sending the Deep State a warning? Does he now have access to all of the dirt on them? We’ll see. I pray that he does. God is in control.
By Pastor Ben Heath
(The Christian Post) Dave Ramsey has urged pastors to refrain from preaching sermons about tithing "to broke people" — unless they first address debt and budgeting from the pulpit.
During a recent interview, the CEO of Ramsey Solutions and author of Financial Peace University, said that he regularly tells pastors to stop stressing the importance of tithing to congregants who aren't good stewards of their money.
"Unless," he clarified, "you've done two sermons on ... debt — one on getting out of debt and one on getting on a budget."
"That's the ratio for me instead of just tithe, tithe, tithe," he said. But when pastors fail to address debt and setting a budget, he said, the reaction to a sermon about tithing is often "yeah right, I've got a light bill. That's a great spiritual concept. Maybe someday I'll get around to that.'"
Getting out of debt leads to giving, the financial expert said, "Because if you're out of debt and on a budget and you love Jesus, I think tithing is a natural thing that occurs."
Still, Ramsey detailed his "incredible love of pastors," describing most of them as "underappreciated" and "underpaid," adding that pastors "could take that same skill set in the marketplace in most cases and make more money."
In an address delivered at the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting in June, Ramsey told pastors: "When you stand up in front of your congregation, you're looking at a large number of people who do not have the ability to handle their money."
"Quit preaching tithe lessons to broke people," he said. "Let's teach them how to get on a budget. ... The natural byproduct of a Jesus lover when they have money is giving."
Taxes according to the Bible
(WND) Two recent court cases remind us of the power of symbols, both inspirational and commercial. Take, for instance, the magnificent rainbow. Its celebration overtones convey simple joy, innocence and purity of heart.
But the sweet rainbow image has been violated, raped by the deluded and fraudulent, and it now serves too often as a garish signpost for slavery to grave homosexual sin. It’s clear God did not intend for the rainbow to represent rebellion, iniquity and division. So how did this precious symbol become the banner, with few objections, for human depravity, lust, defiance and heresy? Rainbow flags are flown in America from some government buildings, at some of our embassies, and these colors on several occasions even lit up our White House (under the former regime, thank God). From shameful pride parades to hats, T-shirts, wristbands and buttons sold at Target or Walmart, sexual deviance is being colorfully and arrogantly proclaimed from America’s rooftops.
We can all agree that some logos and trademarks carry enormous meaning. The mightiest logo of all time is the cross, where Christ shed His blood for the world’s sin and God transformed the tool of torturous execution – what Satan intended for destruction and permanent humiliation –into eternal hope for all who would believe in Jesus.
Homosexuality: Should Christians Embrace It?
Christians Who Tolerations Homosexuality Take God’s Name in Vain
Contending For The Faith