Being Satisfied with God’s Manna

By:  Dale Weckbacher

Numbers 11:4-6

Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said:"Who will give us meat to eat? 5 We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!"

NKJV

Imagine if during the time of the Exodus the people had smart phones and the ability to post videos on You Tube.  Imagine how many hits videos of manna forming on the desert floor would have had.  I imagine many would have said the video was a hoax or photo shopped.  Others would have attributed the phenomenon to some paranormal activity or some supernatural event.  Although not untrue, we would be left to wonder if they would have attributed the event to God. 

Some with political agendas might have attempted to attribute this event to some government food program that they, of course, were instrumental in implementing.  Still others might have attributed this event to some governmental conspiracy to make people dependent on manna for food and not their own efforts.  Others might have complained that the manna was insufficient to meet their needs and demanded more.  Oh wait that did happen and had dire consequences (Numbers 11:1-15).   

In John 6:35 Jesus declared that He is the bread of life.  In John 6:32-33 Jesus teaches that the manna from Heaven that fed the People of Israel for forty years in the wilderness was symbolic of the bread from heaven that gives life to the world.  In declaring that He was the bread of life, Jesus was declaring he is the one symbolized by the manna.

Jesus is all that we need in our lives but since we live in a world filled with temptation, we are continually tempted, as the People of Israel were, to return to what we enjoyed prior to accepting Jesus as our Savior.  We must remember that temptation is not sin for even Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1-11).  It is only when we give in to these temptations that we sin.  Even the Apostle Paul dealt with this struggle and wrote about it in Romans7:13-25. 

It is another election year and after numerous debates and endless caucuses and primaries, the two major party nominees are emerging.  Much as I as an evangelical conservative would have preferred to have one of these nominees be a staunch evangelical conservative, that is most likely not going to occur.  Similar to the struggle we all have with the flesh in our lives, this lack of a viable evangelical candidate leaves us as Christians with some uncomfortable choices this election.  Do we,

1)      Stay home this election believing that our absence will somehow send a resounding message to the nation about its need to return to God.  Many did this in the previous two presidential elections and the result was eight years of ultra-liberal policies and programs like Obamacare and the degradation of culture to where one of the hottest news items today is what bathroom should one use.  In my opinion, just staying home only served to accelerate the nation down the road to socialism and a culture that would make Sodom and Gomorrah blush. 

2)      Hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.  I have voted in every presidential election since 1976.  Unfortunately, in only two of those elections, 1980 and 1984, did I have the choice of a true conservative.  However, I have voted in each of these elections, voting for the least liberal of the candidates, or the lesser of two evils.  Some reading this may accuse me of violating my godly principles by doing this but my reason is simple, to slow the slide of the nation down the slippery slope of darkness, something that has accelerated over the last eight years.  By slowing this slide into darkness, we are providing ourselves an opportunity to spread the Gospel for as we are beginning to witness, the secular society has an agenda to silence anyone daring to spread the Gospel. 

3)      Vote for a third party or write in a true conservative.  While this may allow us to vote with a clear conscious, it has the same effect as staying home, allowing the greater of two evils, and not the lesser of two evils to win. 

Much as I as an evangelical conservatives would have preferred to have a meaty conservative in the ballot with a chance of winning the election, God has provided us with the choice of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  Much as we may dislike it, these two choices are the choices God has given us.  I personally do not believe God wants his people to stay home or waste their vote on a losing third party candidate and instead wants us to engage in this election. 

I therefore plan to vote, with a clear conscious, for the Donald Trump in November.  While he may not be a staunch conservative, he has stated his desire to protect the religious liberties of Christians, something many liberals like Hillary Clinton are attacking with their support of abortion, gay marriage, and even bathroom policies.  Donald Trump is a dealmaker and as such, someone I believe will stick to his word to protect religious liberty when reminded of it by Evangelical Conservatives. 

Better to deal with the dealmaker than the sure continued slide back into the Egyptian slavery of liberalism guaranteed with a Hillary Clinton administration.  

Defining the Presidency (Part 4): Returning to a Constitutional Presidency

By:  Dale Weckbacher

Numbers 14:4

So they said to one another,"Let us select a leader and return to Egypt."

NKJV

We all feel comfortable with a sure thing.  For many of the Israelites, the sure thing was returning to what they had in Egypt.  Of course this sure thing came at the cost of their liberty and meant returning to the oppression of slavery.  However, as Numbers 14:4 tells us, many preferred the sure thing of slavery in Egypt with its goodies to the uncertainty of placing their faith in God to take them into the Promised Land.

The law making function in the United States constitutionally resides in the legislative branch.  This means that for any bill to become law it must earn a majority of votes in the House of Representatives and due to the cloture rules in the U.S. Senate, 60 percent of the votes in the Senate.  (1)  History has demonstrated the difficulty of success in this process that often results in gridlock.  However, gridlock is not necessarily bad for it forces debate on the issues with all sides having a chance to present their side of the issue.  This safeguard is precisely what the founders desired as a means of preventing the nation they risked their lives to form from devolving into a tyranny similar to that in England.

The judicial branch is another safeguard put in place as a means of nullifying unconstitutional legislation that could make it through the rigorous legislative process and be signed by the President.  However, when judges have a political agenda and rule based upon advancing that agenda instead of using the Constitution, the result is rulings like Roe v. Wade, which went beyond judicial review (2) and in effect created legislation that has resulted in the death of many unborn citizens (3)  who never had an opportunity to contribute to our society.   

Unfortunately, an incremental executive power grab by presidents through history has weakened and even removed many of these safeguards.  It seems that the fear of the United States going down the road to tyranny is occurring.  To stop the nation’s slide down this slippery slope we must,

1)      Take power away from unelected agencies working under the direction of the President – through the years Congress formed and continues to fund agencies like OSHA and the EPA and gives them the power to issue regulations with no accountability to voters.  These numerous agencies answer only to the President who often uses them to issue regulations advancing the president’s agenda.  These agencies start with a noble mission such as promoting safer working conditions or a cleaner environment but as they continue to grow, they lose sight of their original mission and instead issue regulations in order to continue their existence.  To disempower this bureaucracy we need congressional oversight that requires the heads of each of these departments to appear before the Congress each year to request continued funding.  If they have accomplished their original mission and are no longer necessary, Congress should disband the agency. 

2)      Term limits for judges – The theory of giving judges lifetime appointments was to prevent them from having to answer to changing political agendas and instead rule based upon the constitutional rule of law.  (4)  However, through history we have observed that judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, begin to advance a political agenda of their own knowing they are virtually immune to removal from office.  Term limits will insure new blood routinely comes into the judicial process that must go through the rigorous appointment and confirmation process. 

3)      Using the Article 5 lifeboat when government is out of control – Article 5 of the U.S. constitution is the article outlining how to amend the Constitution.  (5)  Through the history of the United States, Congress and the states have amended the constitution 27 times.  All 27 of these amendments occurred using the legislative process outlined in the first part of Article 5.  However, the founders knew that a time might come when the Federal Government became so large and out of control that the United States Congress would never propose amendments curtailing its power.  As a safeguard against this tyranny they also provided a means of amending the Constitution bypassing the United States Congress through state legislatures calling for a convention of states.  Many mistakenly call this option a constitutional convention but as we read Article 5, it is only an alternative means of amending the already existing constitution and not the writing of a new one.  Constitutional conservative author Mark Levin wrote a book entitled “The Liberty Amendments” in which he explains the Article 5 convention of states process and proposes amendments designed to reduce the intrusive power and scope of the Federal Government.  I strongly recommend securing a copy of this great book and consider the need to utilize this option at this moment in our nation’s history. 

The definition of the Presidency of the United States has changed from the head of one of the three co-equal branches of the government to an all-powerful executive bordering on a tyrannical dictator and must be reversed for failure to do this will mean the end of Constitutional government.  As we face another presidential election, we have the sure thing of Hillary Clinton guaranteeing the continued slide towards socialism and ever more powerful and intrusive government.  On the other side, we have the uncertainty of Donald Trump.  Granted, as a Cruz supporter I would have preferred the sure thing of Constitutional conservatism, which has worked whenever tried but with Cruz suspending his campaign, we the voters will not have a viable conservative from which to choose. 

I therefore urge voters to go against the human nature of the sure thing this election for that will only result in the loss of our constitutional republic and instead take a chance on the uncertain prospect of a Trump presidency for Trump, a professed dealmaker, is someone we as conservatives will have an opportunity to deal with.  The last thing the United States needs is a return to the Egypt of tyranny from which the nation fought for its freedom. 

1. U.S. Senate. Cloture. www.senate.gov. [Online] United States Senate_vrd.htm. [Cited: May 21, 2016.] www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm.

2. UShistory.org. 9e. The Power of the Federal Courts. www.ushistory.org. [Online] UShistory.org. [Cited: May 21, 2016.] www.ushistory.org/gov/9e.asp.

3. Ertelt, Steven. 58,586,256 Abortions in America Since Roe v. Wade in 1973. www.lifenews.com. [Online] Lifenews.com, January 14, 2016. [Cited: May 21, 2016.] www.lifenews.com/2016/01/14/58586256-abortions-in-america-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/.

4. Laws. Purpose of Lifetime Appointment and Pros and Cons. constitution.laws.com. [Online] Laws. [Cited: May 21, 2016.] constitution.laws.com/supreme-court-justices/purpose-of-lifetime-appointment-and-pros-and-cons.

5. Legal Information Institute. U.S. Constitution. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution. [Online] Cornell University Law School. [Cited: June 19, 2012.] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution.

Purposes for Signs

By:  Dale Weckbacher

Matthew 16:1-3

Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said to them, "When it is evening you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red';  3 and in the morning, 'It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times.

NKJV

Even in the time of Christ, signs played a role in the lives of individuals.  The context of Matthew16:1-3 is the Pharisees and Sadducees testing Jesus by asking Him for a sign.  What they were seeking was a miracle like the feeding of the 4000 which occurred in the previous chapter (Matthew 15:32-39).  However, instead of performing another miracle He went deeper by pointing out their inability to discern the signs of the times or the fact that the Messiah they were waiting for was standing in front of them.  In essence the Pharisees and Sadducees sought an external sign or miracle when the more meaningful sign was that God in the flesh was standing right in front of them as a sign of God’s plan to provide salvation through the sacrifice of His only Son (John 3:16).  Signs continue to serve a purpose in our daily lives.  Sometimes that purpose has evil intentions while at other times signs serve the purpose of protecting us from harm. 

I find it disgusting that in a period of time when we still have rampant terrorism against people, religions, and nations not accepting the theology of Islam, millions unable to find work, and increasing millions receiving subsistence from government that the most newsworthy item is whether a male should be able to use the women’s bathroom.  While this issue is a distraction from more important issues, it is also symptomatic of the degradation of our culture and a threat to the safety and security of the citizens of our nation.  However, the Attorney General of the United States had the gall to equate the so-called bathroom law of North Carolina to the discriminatory Jim Crow laws and believes it is necessary to utilize government resources to sue the State of North Carolina over this law.  (1)

At issue here is that the men and women signs on public restrooms offend individuals who have either, or are in the process of, trans gendering.  In order to properly discern whether an offence has occurred by the existence of these signs, we must define the purpose of these signs by determining if,

1)      The purpose of the sign is discriminatory – The sole purpose of the so-called Jim Crow laws was the segregation of races.  The law in force from 1880 to the 1960’s made it illegal for individuals of differing races to consort together.  (2)  During this time in history, it was common to see signs in public places either prohibiting people of a certain race, mostly African Americans, from entering a place of business or segregating the races on the premises.  The discriminatory nature of these laws and signs came to national attention when Rosa Parks took a stand by refusing to sit in the back of the bus.  (3)  In this instance, the purpose of the sign was discriminatory and only served to promote an evil and nefarious intent to treat people, deemed by God and our nation’s founding documents as equal, unequally. 

2)      The purpose of the sign is safety – Unless you are traveling on the autobahn in Germany, there is most likely a speed limit sign on the roads and highways in your city.  The posted speed limit on the sign is the safe speed as determined by the authorities with jurisdiction over the road.  The purpose of these signs is not discriminatory but a means of insuring the safety of everyone using the road for those choosing to exceed this safe speed may crash and endanger the lives of everyone using the highway deciding to obey the posted speed. 

The question we must now answer is whether the signs posted on public restrooms are similar to discriminatory signs posted during the Jim Crow era or are they there for the safety of the public.  In my opinion, the answer is they serve to promote the safety of the public and here is evidence supporting my opinion.

1)      Rape is a dangerous and violent crime endangering the lives of women (4)– Since the 2012 election cycle, we have been subjected to the issue of a “war on women.”  With the first female presumptive nominee most likely occurring on the Democrat side of this election, the issue of a “war on women” will most likely go to a much higher level.  However, rape constitutes a real war on women and is therefore something we as a society must make an effort to protect our women from.  The signs on the bathrooms therefore serve as a means of protecting our women from perverted men intending to rape them when they are most vulnerable.

2)      Pedophilia is a violent crime threatening the lives of children and robbing children of their innocence (5) – Pedophilia in my opinion is even more abhorrent then rape for it not only violates the victim sexually but also robs children of their innocence.  An innocent child is vulnerable in every aspect of society and is why they usually have adult supervision.  However, when entering a public restroom, an innocent child is most vulnerable to sexual assault.  It is therefore imperative that we provide a safe zone for these children in public restrooms just as we are encouraged to do in public schools to protect children from bullying.  Unfortunately, however, President Obama does not share this belief and has ordered all public schools to allow the use of any bathroom or lose federal funding.  Not only is this another example of an executive power grab using the Department of Education, but also places young innocent children attending school to earn an education, at risk.  (6) Keep the signs up and keep our women and children safe should be our motto. 

Attorney General Lynch has it wrong, the signs on the bathroom are not like the signs public facilities posted during the era of Jim Crow laws in the United States but instead serve the same purpose as speed limit signs posted on our highways, promoting the safety of the public.  We therefore need to insure these signs remain on our public restrooms. 

1. The Federalist Staff. DOJ: Banning Grown Men From Your Daughter's School Locker Room is Just Like Jim Crow. thefederalist.com. [Online] The Federalist, 9 2016, May. [Cited: 14 2016, May.] thefederalist.com/2016/05/09/doj-banning-grown-men-from-your-daughters-school-locker-room-is-just-like-jim-crow/.

2. National Park Service. Jim Crow Laws. www.nps.gov. [Online] The National Park Service. [Cited: May 14, 2016.] https://www.nps.gov/malu/learn/education/jim_crow_laws.htm.

3. U.S. History. 54b. Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. www.ushistory.org. [Online] U.S. History. [Cited: May 14, 2016.] www.ushistory.org/us/54b.asp.

4. Durango, Jessica. CDC: Nearly 1 in 5 Women Raped. www.usatoday.com. [Online] USA Today. [Cited: May 14, 2016.] www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/09/07/cdc-rape-women-statistics/15239361/.

5. infogr.am. US Pedophilia Infographic. www.infogr.am. [Online] infogr.am. [Cited: May 14, 2016.] https://infogr.am/us_pedophilia_infographic.

6. The New York Times. US To Issue Decree on Transgender Access to School Restrooms: NY Times. www.aol.com. [Online] AOL, May 12, 2016. [Cited: May 14, 2016.] www.aol.com/article/2015/05/12/us-to-issue-decree-on-transgender-access-to-school-restrooms-ny/21376362/.

Defining the Presidency (Part 3): Executive Power Grab

By:  Dale Weckbacher

Acts 1:8

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

NKJV

Jesus is about to ascend to Heaven to be with His Father.  He is leaving his disciples and knows they are about to face persecution and death for their faith.  For this reason he told his disciples to wait for the Promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit in order to receive power to spread the Gospel in spite of the tremendous persecution they would face (Acts1:4).

Power in the person of the Holy Spirit is power absent corruption for the same Holy Spirit empowering us to spread the Gospel is the Holy Spirit that humbles us to come to Christ for forgiveness from our sins.  In other words, the same Spirit that empowers can also humble thus keeping us from becoming corrupted by the power the Holy Spirit gives.

Knowing that absolute power can corrupt and having seen the results of this corruption first hand in King George, the founders of the United States were extremely cautious when it came to forming the type of federal government the new nation would have.  For this reason, they established three co-equal branches of government in order to provide assurance against power falling into the hands of one, or a group of individuals thus corrupting them. 

Unfortunately, the hunger for absolute power is insatiable and even with the separation of powers that the founders established in the U.S. Constitution, power has been incrementally transferred to the executive branch of the United States government redefining the Presidency. 

This transference of power has occurred through,

1)      An increasingly powerful unelected administrative branch – Only the judicial branch of the United States government is unelected.  However, judges appointed to the bench go through an appointment and confirmation process involving both elected branches of government.  However, the administration of many governmental functions occurs through various unelected administrative agencies, which in themselves have the authority to issue directives, or regulations, which take on the power of law.  This is the growing bureaucracy which has bloated government to the point where it is more interested in preserving its own existence than serving citizens who did not elect them (1)  and with no accountability to voters, we must ask, who regulates the regulators.  (2)  These administrative agencies work under the authority of the executive branch so in essence, much of the lawmaking authority, which constitutionally exists in the U.S. Congress, occurs through the Executive Branch.  (3)

2)      The politicizing of judicial appointments – Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution lists the enumerated powers, or job description of the judiciary.  The main duty of the judiciary is settling of disputes between citizens or citizens and their government.  Section 2 clause 1 states their duty is to make rulings based upon the rule of law of the Constitution and treaties made by the government.  (4)  To fulfill these duties one would assume the President and Congress would appoint and confirm individuals possessing vast knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and a commitment to uphold the rule of law.  However, just as congress has abdicated much of its lawmaking authority to the executive branch, the politicization of the judiciary has caused political philosophy and not the commitment to the rule of law to become the main yardstick used to determine an individual’s qualification to sit on the bench.  This has resulted in the appointment of judges with an agenda to advance an often unconstitutional legislative or executive agenda with no regard to the Constitution or rule of law.  As examples, we only have to turn to the recent rulings in favor of Obamacare (5) by ruling the mandate a tax even though the legislation does not mention it as a tax, and the legalization of gay marriage without even going through any legislative process.  (6) 

This unconstitutional transference of power has empowered the executive branch to write legislation through a growing administrative branch and the power to appoint judges and justices that will uphold these laws.  In essence, this power transfer has created a soft tyranny centered in the executive branch instead of power evenly distributed among the three co-equal branches of government. 

Next Wednesday, in the final installment of defining the Presidency, we will look at what we must do to restore co-equal government with separated powers. 

1. Turley, Jonathan. The Rise of the Fourth Branch of Government. www.washingtonpost.com. [Online] The Washington Post, May 24, 2013. [Cited: May 14, 2016.] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-of-government/2013/05/24/c7faaad0-c2ed-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html.

2. Slattery, Elizabeth. Who Will Regulate the Regulators? Administrative Agencies, the Separation of Powers, and Chevron Deference. www.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, May 7, 2015. [Cited: May 14, 2016.] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/05/who-will-regulate-the-regulators-administrative-agencies-the-separation-of-powers-and-chevron-deference

3. Lee, United States Senator Mike. Mike Lee: 'Congress Cedes Far Too Much Lawmaking Authority to the Executive Branch'. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart News, January 26, 2015. [Cited: May 14, 2016.] http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/26/mike-lee-congress-cedes-far-too-much-lawmaking-authority-to-the-executive-branch/.

4. Legal Information Institute. U.S. Constitution. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution. [Online] Cornell University Law School. [Cited: June 19, 2012.] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution.

5. The Editors. Chief Justice Roberts’s Folly . www.nationalreview.com. [Online] The National Review, June 28, 2012. [Cited: December 6, 2013.] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/304311/chief-justice-robertss-folly-editors.

6. Sells, Heather. Gay Marriage Ruling Fallout: Christian Leaders React. www.cbn.com. [Online] CBN News, June 27, 2015. [Cited: June 27, 2015.] http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/June/Christian-Leaders-React-to-Gay-Marriag-Ruling/.

Who Do You Trust for National Security

By:  Dale Weckbacher

Psalm 4:8

I will both lie down in peace, and sleep;

For You alone, O LORD, make me dwell in safety.

NKJV

People spend thousands, maybe even millions of dollars each year on security systems for their homes and businesses.  This is because we live in a dark and dangerous world where many believe they have a right to steal possessions, or inflict harm on others.  While these security systems act as a deterrent to crime they are not perfect and can be, and often are, breached.  In Psalm 4:8, David reminds us that it is the Lord that provides the ultimate in security and that when we place our faith in Him, we can lie down in peace each evening. 

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President of the United States the duty of securing the nation.  With this being an election year and with the current President’s second term expiring, the voters in the United States will be electing a new President this election.  In the dangerous world in which we currently live, we must determine who is most qualified and able to fulfill the duty of securing the nation.

With the election now coming down to two presumptive nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, we must take a moment to examine the qualifications of both of these candidates to fulfill the security duties of the Presidency. 

1)      Hillary Clinton – Mrs. Clinton has held the positions of First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State.  During her tenure as Secretary of State, she was responsible for securing national interests abroad as well as the security of U.S. embassies and consulates.  This is why her failure to secure the consulate in Benghazi is something voters must consider in this election.  Despite the numerous calls for additional security by Ambassador Stevens, (1) the ambassador in charge of the Benghazi consulate, she chose to ignore them and instead blame a U-Tube video for the attack killing the ambassador and three others.  (2)  Many believe the reason for this deflection of blame and choice to ignore pleas for security when intelligence showed an attack was eminent was because President Obama, Hillary’s boss at the time was in the middle of a hotly contest election where he was touting he had ended the threat of terrorism by killing Osama Bin Laden.  (3) This demonstrates to voters that where national security is concerned she is willing to abandon national security in favor of protecting her political position.  Is this someone in whom we as voters want to entrust our national security?

2)      Donald Trump – Mr. Trump has never held political office so we do not have the holding of a political office to turn to in order to determine his qualifications to secure the nation as President.  Instead, all we have to go on is his promises to secure the nation and its borders, something he has promised to do since announcing his candidacy for President.  However, as someone that has numerous real estate holdings in the United States and throughout the world, we can examine his commitment to security at these facilities.  After searching Google using the search term “Security issues at Trump facilities” I found no matches.  I find it difficult to believe that in this hotly contested election year, someone would not have discovered some security breach at a Trump facility and written extensively about it.  I believe that it is therefore safe to assume that Donald Trump takes security at the facilities under his control seriously.  Therefore, the question facing voters is will Donald Trump have the same commitment to national security as he has for his own facilities.  One way of demonstrating this commitment, in my opinion, would be to announce his intention of appointing a person with experience and a strong commitment to security as his head of Homeland Security. 

Between the two presumptive nominees for the Office of President, one of which will be the next President of the United States, the voters have the choice of Clinton, someone with a record of placing political interests above the security of the nation, and an unknown who has a record of securing properties under his control.  For me, the decision is simple, Donald Trump for even though he has no experience in national security, he has a record of securing properties under his control. 

Like David, as a Christian my primary source of security is the Lord.  However, I also believe every Christian has the responsibility to vote insuring the security of the nation for those that do not believe in Christ so they can have that opportunity to become believers should they choose.  We therefore as Christians have a duty to be an electoral light to the nation by voting for someone who will secure the nation which in my opinion in this election is Donald Trump. 

Please feel free to comment to this posting with your opinion whether you agree or not.

1. Pamela K. Browne, Catherine Herridge. Ambassador Sought Security Staffing Before Benghazi Attack, Cable Shows. www.foxnews.com. [Online] Fox News, October 19, 2015. [Cited: May 7, 2016.] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/19/ambassador-sought-security-staffing-before-benghazi-attack-email-shows.html.

2. Hoft, Jim. Flachback Video=> Hillary blames "Awful Internet Video" for Benghazi Massacre in Front of Families (Video). www.thegatewaypundit.com. [Online] The Gateway Pundit, January 14, 2016. [Cited: May 7, 2016.] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/flashback-video-hillary-blames-awful-internet-video-for-benghazi-massacre-in-front-of-families-video/

3. Horsey, David. 'GM is Alive, Osama is Dead' is Obama's Answer to Republicans. articles.latimes.com. [Online] The Los Angeles Times, September 5, 2012. [Cited: May 7, 2016.] articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/05/nation/la-na-tt-obamas-answer-20120905.

Defining the Presidency (Part 2): Job Description

By:  Dale Weckbacher

Deuteronomy 17:14-17

"When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say,'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you,'You shall not return that way again.' 17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

NKJV

Last week we explored the intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution when it comes to the Presidency.  Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the enumerated powers of the Presidency.  However, the term enumerated powers is not a term used today so in this posting let us look at the Presidency as a job and look at article 2 as a job description.

Most job descriptions contain three parts, the qualifications for the job, the duties of the job, and finally, how one gets the job. 

1)      Qualifications – According to Article 2, the qualifications for the Presidency are as follows, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  The question of what constitutes a “natural born citizen” has come into dispute in recent years.  Some, like presidential candidate Donald Trump contend that it means someone born on U.S. soil (1) while others believe it means someone born to at least one U.S. citizen parent and not based on the geographical location of his or her birth.  (2)  Once again, by looking at the original intent of the authors of the Constitution, we can find clarification on this issue.  Their definition of natural in the term natural born citizen was the same as the natural in the term natural born subject, which meant someone born to a sovereign of the British Crown.  (3)  It is therefore safe to assume that in the eyes of the authors of the Constitution, the qualifications to be President of the United States are simple, someone 35 years of age or older who were born to at least one U.S. citizen regardless of where the birth occurred. 

2)      Duties – Section 2 of Article 2 outlines the duties of the Presidency which include

a.       Commander in Chief – Article 2 Empowers the President, as commander in chief, to fulfill his or her duty of defending the country by giving him or her command of the military.  This role as commander in chief allows the President to call out the military in order to defend the nation when necessary. 

b.      Pardons – The President has the authority to issue pardons for offences against the United States but this power does not extend to cases of impeachment. 

c.       Appointments – The President has the authority to appoint public officials such as cabinet members, judges etc.  However, these appointments are subject to the advice and consent of at least two thirds of the members of the Senate present at the time the vote occurs.

d.      Addressing Congress – From time to time the President is required to address Congress giving his or her state of the union and recommending, not initiating, legislation to improve the state of the union.  (4)

3)      Attaining the job – The Presidency is an elected office the term of which lasts four years.  The 22^nd amendment of the Constitution went on to limit the President to two terms.  However, even though the Presidency is an elected office, it is unlike other elected offices in that it is not based upon the overall popular vote of the citizens but is based upon the Electoral College, which consists of a delegation of nonelected officials from each state consisting of one elector for each Representative and Senator from that state.  This means that for an individual to attain the job of President of the United States, he or she must have broad support from several states and not just an overwhelming popularity in a few states with large populations such as New York, California, or Texas.  Looking at the 2000 election we see how Al Gore, with overwhelming support from New York and California earned a popular vote victory but was stopped due to George W. Bush’s broad national support from the rest of the country.  (5)

Unfortunately, the duties of the office of the Presidency have expanded through the years and have begun to infringe upon the duties and powers of the other two branches of the United States government.  In next Wednesday’s posting on defining the presidency, we will look at how this infringement has occurred and the danger these infringements pose to our Constitutional Republic. 

1. Epps, Garrett. Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen. www.theatlantic.com. [Online] The Atlantic, January 14, 2016. [Cited: May 7, 2016.] www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/donald-trump-ted-cruz-birther-argument/424104/.

2. Allen, Cooper. Cruz Turns Tables on Trump With Citizenship Question. www.usatoday.com. [Online] USA Today, January 15, 2016. [Cited: May 7, 2016.] www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/14/donald-trump-ted-cruz-citizenship/78824512/.

3. Barnett, Randy. From Natural Born "Subjects" to Natural Born "Citizens". volokh.com. [Online] The Volokh Conspiracy, August 27, 2013. [Cited: May 8, 2016.] volokh.com/2013/08/27/natural-born-subjects-natural-born-citizens/.

4. Legal Information Institute. U.S. Constitution. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution. [Online] Cornell University Law School. [Cited: June 19, 2012.] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution.

5. Samples, John. In Defense of the Electoral College. www.cato.org. [Online] CATO Institute, November 10, 2000. [Cited: May 7, 2016.] www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college.

Being an Electoral Light in a Dark Election

By:  Dale Weckbacher

Joshua 24:15

And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

NKJV

This statement by Joshua tells us that in his life, his Lord was the only one he intended to serve.  Joshua did not casually come to this belief in his life for in the course of his life he had witnessed the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage.  He had witnessed how God preserved and guided Israel for forty years in the wilderness.  He had experienced the grace of God by preserving him for his faith while others doubted when he was sent to spy out the Promised Land (Numbers 14:6-9).  In addition, Joshua’s faith in God grew as he witnessed God miraculously enabling the outnumbered nation of Israel to inhabit the land promised to them by God. 

                                  

The situation for God’s people has not changed for even today Christians are persecuted for their faith.  In many parts of the world this persecution is physical with many living under the threat of death for their faith.  (1)  In nations like the United States these persecutions take on the form of loss of friends or as we recently have seen loss of livelihood.  (2)(3)  Christians also face the possibility that acceptance of radical Muslims into free nations like the United States may bring on life threatening persecution of Christians even in nations where religious liberty is protected.  (4) 

                                         

Each one of us who has accepted Jesus Christ as our savior has experienced a Joshua moment where we have decided Jesus Christ is the only King and Lord of our lives.  For some of us this is a rags to riches story of miraculous deliverance from drug abuse, lives of crime, or sexual promiscuity.  Some have miraculous stories of deliverance from religions such as Islam or even satanic worship.  For others the story may be less spectacular and be a story of realization that all of our good works were worthless in the sight of God (Isaiah 64:6) and that we need to accept Jesus as our savior in order to escape the death penalty of sin in our lives (Romans 6:23). 

However, instead of taking us immediately to heaven to be with our Lord and King when we choose Jesus as our savior, Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit to empower us to live in this world full of persecution (Acts1:8).  This is because it is not the will of God the Father that any should die in their sins (2 Peter 3:9), even though some do because they choose not to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. 

Election years reveal the desire for people to seek some great, even messianic, leader to solve their problems.  Each election many people emerge and run for office promising to be the leader people are looking for.  During these political campaigns, candidates often resort to personal attacks upon their competitors in order to eliminate them from the campaign opening the door for them to emerge as the leader sought after by the masses.

This, however, does not mean we as Christians are not to participate in the electoral process for even God Himself knew Israel would seek after an earthly king (Deuteronomy 17:14-16).  In fact, how we as Christians vote is an opportunity for us to shed light on the benefits of being led by Godly leadership leading in accordance to the principles of the Word of God.  Let us therefore be lights in this electoral process by voting for and supporting leadership leading by Godly principles. 

However, what are we as Christians to do when neither candidate is a believer?  In the United States the answer to this question is simple.  The constitution of the United States in its first amendment defends the right of all individuals, including Christians, to practice their religion.  Since the responsibility of government is the defending of the Constitution, we must vote for the candidate who will best defend the right to religious freedom even if they are not a professed believer in Jesus as Savior. 

Like Joshua, I profess Jesus as the only King in my life and will do whatever I can to let the light of the Gospel shine in my life (Matthew 5:16).  As part of letting this light shine I will support those professing Jesus as their Savior in elections and in the event none of the candidates makes that profession, vote for those defending my right to practice my religion by letting the light of Jesus shine from my life and when the opportunity presents itself, share the Gospel with others. 

Will you join me in being lighthouses for Christ in this election?

1. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Christian Persecution: Quick Facts: Reliable and Informative Snapshots of the Focus Issue. erlc.com. [Online] [Cited: April 30, 2016.] erlc.com/issues/quick-facts/persecution/.

2. Smith, Samuel. Oregon christian Bakers Ordered to Pay $135K After Refusing to Work Gay Wedding; Told to Stop Speaking About 'ObeyGod, Not Man'. www.christianpost.com. [Online] The Christian Post, July 3, 2015. [Cited: August 26, 2015.] http://www.christianpost.com/news/oregon-christian-bakers-ordered-to-pay-135k-after-refusing-to-work-gay-wedding-told-to-stop-speaking-about-obeying-god-not-man-141137/.

3. McBride, Sarah. Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire www.reuters.com. [Online] Reuters, April 3, 2014. [Cited: March 26, 2016.] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403

4. Sidway, Ralph. Muslim Persecution of Christians - Call it What it is: GENOCIDE. www.jihadwatch.org. [Online] Jihad Watch, December 10, 2015. [Cited: April 30, 2016.] https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/muslim-persecution-of-christians-call-it-what-it-is-genocide.

Defining the U.S. Presidency (Part 1): Original Intent of the U.S. Founders

By:  Dale Weckbacher

Deuteronomy 17:14-17

"When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say,'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you,'You shall not return that way again.' 17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

NKJV

It was always the intent of God the Father that Israel worship God as their king.  However, Deuteronomy 17:14 shows us that God knew a time would come when Israel desired a king like the other nations surrounding them.  With this in mind, God instructs Israel to select a king who God chooses (Deuteronomy 17:15).  The scripture goes on to instruct the one selected as king not to multiply horses, symbolic of a powerful military or material wealth in the form of silver or gold.  This king is also not to instruct the people to move back to Egypt.  The king is also to have one wife so his heart does not turn away from the Lord (Deuteronomy17:16-17).

In the United States we have no king or queen.  However, every four years the nation elects a president.  The original intention of the authors of the Constitution was that the office of The President have limited powers and not rule the nation as a monarch like the king of England.  Over the next four Wednesday postings we will define the Presidency of the United States in order to better understand the duties of the office so in this election year we as voters will elect the individual best qualified to fulfill these duties.  To begin, we will look at the original intent of the founders of the nation by attempting to view the state of the newly born nation in the context of the times in which these individuals lived. 

In 1776, the founders of the United States essentially signed their death warrants by authoring and signing the Declaration of Independence.  This is because their signatures on this document were an act of treason against the British Crown and had England prevailed in the Revolutionary war, they would have been hanged for treason.  (1)  However, only five of them were captured and tortured for treason.  Nine others fought in the Revolutionary War and died from wounds or hardships suffered in the war.  However, life for the remaining 42 signers was not easy with them suffering financial loss through the pillaging and burning of their properties.  (2)

After the failure of governance under the Articles of Confederation, the states convinced the Continental Congress to convene in Philadelphia in 1787 to in their words “devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”  (3) 

Those meeting at the 1787 convention had been alive during the Revolutionary War and understood the reasons behind entering into that war.  Their strong intention not to see the newly founded nation become a tyrannical monarchy like the one in Britton was behind the adoption of the Articles of Confederation but its failure had demonstrated the need for a more powerful federal government.  However, the desire not to form another monarchy remained strong and the result was a constitution establishing a federal government with power separated between three co-equal branches of government who had defined enumerated powers and a system of checks and balances on each other. 

The President is the head of the executive branch of the U.S. Federal government whose enumerated powers are defined in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  Next Wednesday we will look in greater depth at these powers and for this posting I will suffice it to say the authors of The Constitution intended for the President to preside over the Military and enforce laws enacted by Congress and signed by the sitting President or the ones that held the office prior to His or Her election.  In no portion of Article 2 is there mention or implication that the President has the power to enact legislation via executive order but only the power to suggest legislation to Congress for them to pass.  Unfortunately, through the years since 1787, the office of the Presidency has changed to where today it is beginning to more closely resemble a tyrannical monarchy then the limited power head of the executive branch of the government as outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution. 

Next Wednesday, in part 2 of this series, we will begin to look at the enumerated powers for the presidency as outlined in Article 2.  After gaining this perspective of how the founders intended the Presidency to function we will move on to see how the once co-equal status of the Presidency of the United States has begun to usurp the powers of the legislative and judicial branches.  This usurpation of power by the executive branch is in direct violation of the original intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, and something we must begin undoing. 

1. Maxey, David. The Unfinished Revolution. www.nps.gov. [Online] The National Park Service. [Cited: April 30, 2016.] https://www.nps.gov/revwar/unfinished_revolution/treason.htm.

2. NHCCS.org. Destiny of the Signier of The Declaration of Independence. www.nhccs.org. [Online] [Cited: April 30, 2016.] www.nhccs.org/destiny.html.

3. City, University of Missouri in Kansas. Convention? What Were the Key Compromises That Were Made in Philadelphia? law2.umkc.edu. [Online] University of Missouri in Kansas City. [Cited: April 30, 2016.] law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/convention1787.html.