Bogman lives in drought-stricken Upland, California. He’s used to seeing water
restrictions being issued by both the city and the state, and he tries to comply
as best he can.
That’s why Bogman’s upset about his upcoming court date that could send him to
jail, or force him to pay thousands in fines.
The Press Telegram, Borgman
has refused to water his lawn because of how low the water table is in
Most of the state is under imposed water restrictions, and Borgman can’t
understand why he would be taken to court when all he is doing is trying to be
responsible with the little water they have.
The city on the other hand thinks that he needs to water the grass. The dead
grass is really aggravating to them, apparently.
But Borgman said, “It is morally not acceptable to pour buckets and buckets of
water on the grass when we live in a desert area.” The city has twice told told
him to fix his lawn and pay fines of $1,000 and $1,200, but he’s told them to
City prosecutor Dan Peelman has accused Borgman of maintaining a lawn that isn’t
grass, only dirt.
But Borgman says he’s got shrubs and bushes that are still green, and are
keeping the lawn together. The city even sent a “brown grass educator” to his
house who tried to instruct Borgman on how to maintain his lawn during the
Borgman responded by asking for grass that doesn’t need to be watered.
Borgman would rather appeal to his conscience as opposed to bowing to the
demands of the city. As he said, “It is the city’s job and obligation to make
the correct laws and to create awareness to its citizens. The city has failed in
In a state like California it’s impossible to know what to do. Borgman knows
this. And that’s why he’s fighting the city and their ridiculous requests.
Leave it up to bureaucrats to antagonize someone in such a ridiculous way.
They do the same thing with power and electricity, forcing you to depend on
government operated power utilities.
December 20, 2014
If you told someone in
2013 that a comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco would set off
international violence, they probably wouldn’t believe you. But in 2014,
that prospect doesn’t seem nearly as ridiculous. The movie in question –
The Interview – features the comedy superstars as journalists asked by
the CIA to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un under the
pretense of an interview with the dictator. From the time of its initial
announcement, North Korea has engaged in some of their worst
saber-rattling in years.
In June, the North
Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement condemning the
movie. “If the United States administration tacitly approves or supports
the release of this film, we will take a decisive and merciless
countermeasure,” said a North Korean spokesman. “The enemies have gone
beyond the tolerance limit in their despicable moves to dare hurt the
dignity of the supreme leadership.”
Big Talk From a Small
For most Americans,
this amounted to little more than another round of tough talk from a
country that has made impotent bluster their favorite form of
communication. While there have been concerns in recent years about the
extent of the country’s nuclear capabilities, there has been little
definitive proof that they have the bomb. As recently as 2013, the
country announced a successful underground nuclear test. While the test
registered on earthquake-detection surveys, investigators later said it
had not been accompanied by an expected rise in radiation levels. Was
North Korea really getting close to becoming a nuclear superpower, or
was this just more trickery from the most secretive government in the
The jury is still out
when it comes to North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, but, as Sony
Pictures just found out, there are more ways than one to launch an
attack. While there is no hard evidence linking the enormous Sony hack
to North Korea’s government, the stated aims behind the attack certainly
point to Kim Jong-un and company. And though the hack has caused
immeasurable damage to Sony Pictures, their relationships in Hollywood,
and their reputation, the group behind the hacks – Guardians of Peace –
now claim there is violent trouble on the horizon.
The hackers released a
statement this week that included a barely-veiled threat of terrorism:
“The world will be full of fear,” said the message. “Remember the 11th
of September 2001. We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the
places at that time. (If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.)
Whatever comes in the coming days is called by the greed of Sony
Pictures Entertainment.” The message is directed at cinemas that feature
The Interview, “including the premiere.”
So far, only southern
movie chain Carmike Cinemas has heeded the warning, announcing in the
wake of the message that they would be canceling the Christmas Day
release of the film. For their part, Sony has advised theaters that they
are free to make their own decisions when it comes to exhibiting the
movie. Additionally, it was reported that stars Rogen and Franco would
be canceling the rest of their promotional appearances.
Officials at the
Department of Homeland Security have said there is no credible evidence
that such an attack is in the works
Dianne Feinstein spots drone inches from face
Sen. Dianne Feinstein says she once found a drone
peeking into the window of her home — the kind of cautionary tale she wants
lawmakers to consider as they look at allowing commercial drone use.
The California Democrat offered few details about
the incident when speaking about it Wednesday afternoon, during a Senate
Commerce Committee hearing on drone policy at which she appeared as a special
witness. But she used the episode to implore lawmakers to “proceed with
DEC. 30 - 'Oh,
East is East, and West is West, And never the twain shall meet, Till earth and
sky stand presently, At God's great judgment seat'
American Minute with Bill Federer
American Minute archives
h, East is East, and
West is West,
And never the twain shall meet,
Till earth and sky stand presently,
At God's great judgment seat"
wrote Rudyard Kipling in Ballad of East and West
Born DECEMBER 30, 1865, in Bombay, India, he was sent back to England at age
5 for schooling.
Poor eyesight ended hopes of a military career, so at age 16 he returned to
India as a journalist, winning acclaim for his poems.
He fell in love with his friend's sister, Caroline Balestier, while visiting
They married and settled in Vermont, where two of their children were born.
There Rudyard Kipling wrote Captains Courageous
and The Jungle
Once back in England, he declined King George V's offer of knighthood, Poet
Laureate and Order of Merit, though accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature
His works include: Kim, Wee Willie Winkie, Baa Baa Black Sheep,
In The Conundrum of the Workshops
, Rudyard Kipling wrote:
"Now, if we could win to the Eden Tree where the Four Great Rivers flow,
And the Wreath of Eve is red on the turf as she left it long ago,
And if we could come when the sentry slept and softly scurry through,
By the favour of God we might know as much -- as our father Adam knew!"
Get the book, America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations
In The Last Chantey
, Rudyard Kipling wrote:
"Then cried the soul of the stout Apostle Paul to God:
'Once we frapped a ship, and she laboured woundily.
There were fourteen score of these,
And they blessed Thee on their knees,
When they learned Thy Grace and Glory under Malta by the sea!'"
President Reagan said, December 13, 1988:
"As I prepare to lay down the mantle of office...I cannot help believe that
what Rudyard Kipling said of another time and place is true today for
'We are at the opening verse of the opening page of the chapter of endless
Thank you, and God bless you."
DVD Political Islam's War with the West
Faith in History
Firestorm: U.S. school makes
girls follow Islam dress code
District confirms Shariah must
be 'respected' by females on field trip
January 9, 2015
January 5, 2015
and animal extremists got a bee in their collective bonnet this week
when Sarah Palin posted a picture of her son standing on his service dog
to reach the kitchen sink.
The dog –
a black Labrador that acts as a service animal for Trig, who is
afflicted with Down Syndrome – was obviously unhurt, but that didn’t
stop the screamers from screaming.
fray was the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),
labeling the conservative a “bizarrely callous woman.”
This, of course, is not the first time PETA has
made themselves look ridiculous. In fact, the vast majority of Americans
regard the organization as the joke that it is. They don’t limit their
attacks to conservatives; many will remember the flack President Obama
received in 2009 when he dared to swat a fly on national television.
PETA sent him a device meant to catch flies “humanely,” so that they can
be returned to the wild. Even the most ardent Obama haters rolled their
Danger Lurking Beneath the Idiocy
But PETA is more dangerous than you might think.
They make their occasional foray into the
mainstream when they see a story they can exploit, but they do their
craziest work outside the spotlight. What many people don’t know about
is their tireless commitment to killing the very animals they are
ostensibly trying to save. While they raise the roof about one
6-year-old standing on a dog, they have killed more than 19,000 dogs and
cats since 1998. According to most resources, PETA puts to death 90
percent of the animals they take in.
If PETA ran the world, of course, there would be no such thing as
Millions of dogs, cats, pigs, birds, and other
commonly-owned household pets would be liberated under PETA’s rule, left
to fend for themselves in the harsh wild. Several times, PETA’s
spokespeople have argued in favor of “total animal liberation.” If they
had their way, zoos would become a thing of the past, fur would be gone,
leather would be obsolete, and there would be no more meat, cheese,
eggs, milk, or honey. What a world!
The human race could survive without all of those
things, even if it would make life a little worse.
\Where PETA is at its most dangerous, though, is
also where its arguments are most effective.
Even people who are normally sensible can be
swayed by propaganda against medical research.
But without animal research, medical progress
against some of humanity’s most prescient health threats would come to
Without animal testing, we would live in a world
without many of our best surgical procedures, without vaccines, and
without the medications that have given us the extraordinary jump in
life span we’ve experienced over the last hundred years.
When PETA raises a stink about something as
stupid as Palin’s photo, people just shake their heads and laugh.
But when you do, remember that PETA’s aims are
destructive and dangerous to the human race.
It’s laudable to care about the “ethical
treatment of animals,” but we must never compromise the future of
humanity for the sake of appeasing the lunatic left.
Written by Doug
November 30, 2014
week, as I was watched the Ferguson fiasco go down, I kept bouncing back and
forth between CNN and MSLSD to see how the Left was pitching this massive
destruction of personal and private property on behalf of the “innocent” and
“gentle giant”, Michael Brown.
networks had black ministers on throughout the week that basically justified the
riots. Yes, some pooh-poohed the extreme acts of violence, however several of
them didn’t really crap on the “protestors”.
amongst the “ministers” who didn’t seem to care what chaos was created was the
Reverend Al Sharpton and his spirit-twin the Reverend Jesse Jackson.
watched these “men of God” cheerlead this mess, I started thinking to myself,
“Self … what Bible do they read? … ‘The Race-Baiters Grievance Edition?’ “;
because no one who’s ever traipsed through an unadulterated New Testament would
think that such mayhem, for such a flimsy — no … farcical — reason is remotely
justifiable. That is if, and that’s a big “if”, Jesus is the standard for a
Indeed, if one read just a smidgen of Jesus’s teachings they would quickly
deduce that if Christ were the blueprint for the believer, then the behavior of
these looting morons is contemptible and worthy of a true minister’s rebuke and
wide spread public condemnation. But, eh … not so much for the likes of the
Reverend Sharpton and Jackson, which left me thinking that they must revere
something else other than the Jesus of The Gospels because the Christ of the
Scripture wouldn’t back their race-baiting and destructive behavior or anyone
that fans those hideous flames.
said, please allow me to inject at this juncture that Jesus was not above
kicking some butt and breaking stuff if need be. Look, Jesus was no wussy. For
example, one of the first snapshots we have of Jesus in John’s account of his
ministry was his turning water into wine and cleansing the temple, two things
the teetotalers and the timid would not like being in the sacred text.
out in John 2:13-17:
it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In
the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others
sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove
all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the
money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he
said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a
market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house
will consume me.”
here’s Matthew’s account of Jesus’ opening up a can of whup ass: Matthew
21: 12 “And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in
the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of
those who sold pigeons. 13 He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house shall be
called a house of prayer,” but you make it a den of robbers.’ “
break it down, shall we?
off, please take note of the offense that got Jesus in a bad mood: Religious
hucksters had turned God’s house into a cash cow for religious goobers. In
other words, it was a clear-cut, irrefutable offense, with empirical evidence,
that got Christ’s dander up. Ponder that nugget before you burn down an
innocent couple’s grocery store, por favor.
lead, as stated, to Jesus’ going postal on the place. But what I’d like to
point out was how Jesus released his rage as an example to us schleps that
follow his lead, if and when it comes to dusting up against some true
injustice. Are you ready? Well, alrighty then.
are the various particulars regarding how the Holy One rolled.
Jesus made a whip, which
screams to moi, that he was patient and methodical and it wasn’t belligerent,
out of control, frenzied rage he sported.
Jesus only vandalized the
evil SOBs’ stuff that were desecrating God’s house. Please note, he didn’t
morph into a crazy vandal.
Jesus didn’t steal their
stuff after condemning their actions. Hello!
Jesus had a clear biblical
mandate that God’s house was to be a house of prayer and that zeal for its
purity drove his legit wrath.
Jesus, didn’t cleanse the
temple incognito. He wasn’t anonymous. He wore no weird mask, or a bandana over
his face, or a hoodie and shades. People who do that are nutless wonders. If
you’re so bold and so in the right, then like Jesus, represent … stand up and be
Jesus didn’t make a living
off grievance based temple-tossing. He didn’t form a non-profit that went
around making life miserable for everyone he thought sucked. Also, he acted
alone, without some massive posse and there are only two examples of him ever
engaging in such acts.
Jesus never said to his
disciples lets “burn this bitch down”. Please note, he also didn’t call them
“mother—kers” as his wrath was bridled.
my little children, is how Christ threw a holy fit.
else is … well … uh … un-Christlike and must be repented of and condemned
especially by “reverends” who lead the flock of God, of which I bet the majority
of the Ferguson protestors go to church. So I’m a thinkin’ the aforementioned
for the slow amongst us who claim Christ as their captain please note in Jesus’s
example of opening up a can of whup ass that …
was no stealing.
was no arson.
was no stoking of a phony revolt based on lies. Empirical evidence drove Jesus’
cleansing of the temple.
was no labeling of the folks as “Jewish-devils.”
was no unnecessary destruction of property.
was no inciting to riots.
didn’t do it in defense of some teenaged criminal.
didn’t threaten to rape and/or murder his enemies’ women and kids.
– And he
wasn’t impulsive in his anger and reduced to animalistic destruction.
an example on how to deal with egregious wrongs without losing one’s holy head.
here’s my challenge to my black brethren: I dare black ministers to read this in
one more thing: the only religion that allows for the kind of destruction and
chaos that we witnessed this past week in Ferguson and other places is Islam and
might ought to think about either converting to Islam or repenting for missing
Christ’s example by a flippin’ mile.
From Curse to Redemption,
Traveling Toward Consummation
December 21. 2014
This passage paints a picture
of the brevity of human life. “At least,” sighs Job, in what may sound sarcastic
to our cynical ears, “there is hope for a tree …” (Job
14:7). Job’s comparison of a person’s fragility to that of a flower (see
Job 15:2) is an ironically opposite image. We are reminded of David’s words
Psalm 103:15–17: “The life of mortals is like grass, they flourish like a
flower of the field; the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place
remembers it no more. But [and this caveat means everything to us as believers]
from everlasting to everlasting the LORD’s love is with those who fear him.” Job
had a God-inspired inkling about redemption (see
Job 19:25), but it was ill-formed, a vague hope groping beyond the light of
the revelation God had to that point made available to humankind.
Historical theologian and
national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for Environmental Stewardship E.
Calvin Beisner observes:
What we ought to expect, if we
believe in the transforming power of Christ in the lives of the redeemed and,
through them, on the cultures in which they live, is an increasing reversal of
the effects of the Curse, a progressive transformation that parallels the
growth—both intensive and extensive—of Christianity through the centuries. While
Biblically sound social analysis repudiates the secularist ideology of
inevitable Progress, nonetheless the Christian doctrines of creation, fall,
curse, redemption, and consummation equip us with a linear concept of time and a
Biblically grounded faith that God is indeed working in time and space to
restore this fallen and cursed world to glory (Mt
13:24–43), and we ought to see—and can see if we are looking—evidences of
this in history.
Job’s imagery of a tree “dying”
and rising again at the scent of water is striking in light of Beisner’s
reflections (though the analogy was certainly not intended by either Job or by
this modern author) (see
In terms of historical
progression, Job lived under the curse (temporally speaking, the cross was yet
far off, though God in his grace would offer to his Old Testament saints
glimpses of salvation; see
Heb 4:2). We, on the other hand, find ourselves blessed to be living on the
stepping-stone of redemption. Our sights are set on the rock-solid certainty of
a glorious future with Christ. God’s Old Testament people knew little of curse
reversal (and God will deal with them on the basis of what he did choose to
reveal in the days before Christ). Indeed, our stewardship of the planet covers
a dimension they could not fully have foreseen. Having moved from curse to
redemption, we are invited to travel confidently and diligently, in faith and at
work, toward consummation, that glorious completion of all God’s work.
Think About It
How do you think that God
revealed glimpses of future redemption to the Old Testament saints?
In what ways do you see
glimpses of God reversing the curse in your world?
What does it mean to travel
confidently toward consummation? It all began in a garden and will end in a
city. What role does our work play in moving along God’s plan for creation?
Pray About It
Lord, I praise your work in the
past, present and future for the redemption and restoration of all things.
republicanism to tyranny: How did we lose our rights?
December 9, 2014
This is the first of a two-part series.
If an effort is to be undertaken by
Americans in which they are to reclaim their rights under natural law (rights
that are being stolen from them every day by the tyrannical fascist American
regime), then an understanding of what has transpired to take away those rights
must first be achieved. For if one does not know how his rights were taken from
him, there is no way he can adequately labor for their return.
The Founding Fathers drafted the
Constitution, ostensibly, to create a vehicle to keep a check on government. It
was a compact of states, and the document was ratified by the states (see
Article VII). It was not ratified by the people in a mass election, but by the
states one by one.
The Constitution drafted by the Founders was
not intended to form a strong “national” government with heavily centralized
power, but as a means to represent a group of states only on matters that
concerned them all. The government was given a list of enumerated powers in
Article I, Section 8. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 14:
In the first place, it is to be
remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole
power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to
certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic,
but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.
In Federalist No. 45 Madison wrote:
The powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are
to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former
will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace,
negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation
will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several
states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of
affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the
internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.
The Constitution was not a document designed
to restrain the people or the states, but to place restraints on the federal
government the Founders were creating. This is an important distinction. It
would not have been ratified if not for the promise of a bill of rights to
further check the federal government. That’s because most of the Founders —
particularly the Anti-Federalists — feared the Constitution wasn’t strong enough
to prevent the Federal government from stealing power from the states.
To that end, the Bill of Rights established
a set of restrictions on federal government. The preamble to the Bill of Rights
expresses this quite plainly:
THE Conventions of a number of the
States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a
desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that
further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as
extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best
ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The first eight amendments were checks on
federal power. The 9th and 10th Amendments state the
Founders’ intent that all power not granted the general (Federal) government in
the Constitution was reserved to the states and to the people.
The Constitution was based on Federalism, or
the concept that authority for governing local matters should be left to the
purview of local and state governments, and authority for big items affecting
the whole (trade, war, disputes between the states, etc.) was held by the
federal government and determined through representatives of the people (House
of Representatives) and the states (Senate).
The Founding Fathers understood that states
joining the compact voluntarily were free to leave. In fact, it was New England
states, or at least Federalists from those states, who first broached the idea
of leaving the United States. They called it disunion.
Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts (who was
George Washington’s adjutant general during the Revolution and served as
Washington’s secretary of state and secretary of war), along with his Federalist
cohorts, sought to separate after Thomas Jefferson was elected president.
Pickering called separation the remedy
pointed to by “the principles of our Revolution.”
“I will rather anticipate a new confederacy,
exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence of the aristocratic Democrats
of the South,” wrote Pickering. “There will be a separation… [and] the black and
white populations will mark the boundary.”
Senator James Hillhouse, a Revolutionary War
captain who went on to serve in the second, third and fourth Congresses, said,
“The Eastern States must and will dissolve the union and form a separate
New England Federalists believed that
Virginia was gaining too much power and would act against the interests of New
England states and in the interests of Southern ones. After Jefferson’s
election, Federalist Stephen Higgenson claimed the federal government “had
fallen into the hands of infidel, anti-commercial, anti-New England Southerners”
who would “govern and depress New England.”
Federalist John Lowell Jr. expressed state’s
rights sentiments of the New England secessionists when he stated, “[I]t is our
duty, our most solemn duty, to vindicate the rights, and support the interests
of the states we represent.”
Their complaints mirrored those made by
Southerners advocating for secession in the 1860s, including Robert E. Lee, who
told General Winfield Scott, “If the union is disrupted I shall return to my
native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw
my sword on none.”
In 1804, Federalists began plotting their
strategy to begin “disunion.” Massachusetts was to take the lead by seceding
first, Pickering wrote in a letter to Theodore Lyman, followed by Connecticut,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Their cause disintegrated when Aaron Burr
failed to win the governorship of New York and Burr was then tarnished after he
killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.
In the 1830s and 1840s, abolitionists, chief
among them William Lloyd Garrison, called for “disunion.” The New England
Anti-Slavery Convention voted in favor of secession by a margin of 250-24.
The Civil War — aka the War to Prevent
Southern Secession or the war of Northern Aggression — essentially neutered the
9th and 10th Amendments. The war was not started by
President Abraham Lincoln to end slavery. It was fought to reign in a
“rebellion” of states who were exercising their rights as outlined in the
Declaration of Independence.
Abraham Lincoln, the war’s chief prosecutor,
himself said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing
any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I
would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I
would also do that.” In fact, the official government name for the war is the
“War of the Rebellion.”
To “save the Union,” Lincoln trampled on the
rule of law. He suspended habeas corpus, ignored Supreme Court rulings, sent
federal troops into state legislatures to prevent them from voting, arrested
politicians, shut down opposition newspapers and held their editors without
trial and signed illegal executive orders and congress-passed laws.
General William T. Sherman, the Union war
criminal whose army left a vast swath of rape and pillage destruction from
Tennessee, through Georgia and South Carolina — and who later engaged in
genocide on the Plains Indians — wrote to Major R.M. Sawyer in a January 1864
letter that the war “Was the result of a false political doctrine that any and
every people have a right to self government.” He went on to write that state’s
rights, freedom of conscience and freedom of the press were “trash” that had
“deluded the Southern people into the war.” Sherman was acting with the approval
of his commander, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, and therefore with the approval of the
The natural result of Lincoln’s actions is
the empirical presidency we have today. President Barack Obama once claimed he
fancied himself a modern-day Lincoln. It’s probably the only truth he’s uttered
since he took office. OK: Queue the inevitable zombie commenters that will label
me a racist for expressing a truth.
Following the war, New York Rev. Henry Ward
Beecher went to Charleston, S.C., and gave a speech beneath a large U.S. flag.
In his speech
he said, “Let no man misread the meaning of this unfolding flag! It says,
‘GOVERNMENT hath returned hither.’ It proclaims in the name of vindicated
government, peace and protection to loyalty; humiliations and pains to
traitors. This is the flag of sovereignty. The nation, not the States, is
sovereign. Restored to authority, this flag commands, not supplicates… There may
be pardon [for former Confederates], but no concession… The only condition of
submission is to submit!”
This was the attitude toward the South held
by most of most of the Radical Republicans.
With the South vanquished and the threat of
secession out of the way, Radical Republicans in Congress set out to bury
self-determination under a mountain of centralizing legislation and judicial
That led to the ratification 14th
Amendment — if it was actually legally ratified — and spawned a growing tyranny
of the judiciary that followed some 60 years later: what Jefferson would term
“the despotism of an oligarchy” and the idea that, for the president, the ends
justifies the means.
Since its passage, the 14th
Amendment’s due process clause has been used by activist judges to strip the
states and people of their liberty and give almost unlimited power to the
Next Monday: Judicial ‘sappers and miners’
undermined the Constitutional fabric of the nation.
[i] The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J.
DiLorenzo, pp. 94-97.
Hope in Hard Times
December 22. 2014
I trembled inside when I heard
this; my lips quivered with fear. My legs gave way beneath me, and I shook in
terror. I will wait quietly for the coming day when disaster will strike the
people who invade us. Even though the fig trees have no blossoms, and there are
no grapes on the vines; even though the olive crop fails, and the fields lie
empty and barren; even though the flocks die in the fields, and the cattle barns
are empty, yet I will rejoice in the Lord! I will be joyful in the God of my
The Sovereign Lord is my
strength! He makes me as surefooted as a deer, able to tread upon the heights.
Habakkuk lived in Judah during
the reign of Jehoiakim (2
Kings 23:26–24:5). He prophesied between the fall of Nineveh (the capital of
Assyria) in 612 b.c. and the Babylonian invasion of Judah in 598 b.c. He’s best
known for asking God why he allows evil (Habakkuk
1:2-3)—a question many have asked since then.
Crop failure and the death of
animals would devastate Judah. But Habakkuk affirmed that even in the times of
starvation and loss, he would still rejoice in the Lord. Habakkuk’s feelings
were controlled not by the events around him, but by faith in God’s ability to
give him strength.
Habakkuk saw his own
limitations in contrast to God’s unlimited control of all the world’s events.
Habakkuk praised God for answering his questions. Evil will not triumph forever;
God is in control, and he can be completely trusted to vindicate those who are
faithful to him. God is alive and in control of the world and its events. We
cannot see all that God is doing, and we cannot see all that God will do. But we
can be assured that he is God and will do what is right. Knowing this can give
us confidence and hope in a confusing world.
When nothing makes sense, and
when troubles seem more than you can bear, remember that God gives his followers
surefooted confidence through difficult times.
They will run like deer
across rough and dangerous terrain.
At the proper time, God will
bring about his justice and completely rid the world of evil.
In the meantime, God’s
people need to live in the strength of his Spirit, confident in his ultimate
victory over evil.
Take your eyes off of your
difficulties and look to God.
If God Sent You a Letter