Category Archives: Uncategorized

The University of Missouri and the Problems Promised in Prophecy

The University of Missouri and the Problems Promised in Prophecy

” . . . For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom . . .” – Matthew 24:7

The world has not changed for the better over the last 20 centuries.  If the Lord’s timing is different than what many people think, it will not change for the better over the next 20 centuries.  Society is, and will be, all that the Bible tells us that it is, and will be, and one of the things that the Lord Jesus told us in “bright red ink on bright white paper” is that prior to His return, that rising racial turmoil will be a hallmark of a hell bound society.  He did not give it to us as a spiritual virtue either, He gave it to us as a sign and symptom of the season before He comes again.

I remember as a younger man reading the great Olivet Discourse with eagerness to see if I could see what no one  could see, or had seen in over 2000 years.  It never happened.  What did happen was that when I came to verse 7 I would wonder if the Lord was just repeating Himself for effect when He spoke of “nation – nation – kingdom – kingdom.”  Most people think of a “nation” and a “kingdom” as the same thing; but in fact they are not.

When we look behind the king’s English we find that the word for nation is the word “ethnos” in which we get our word, “ethnic” from.  According to Dr. Strong the root and concept of this word is “race”.  Now that being said, Jesus told us that “race would rise up against race” and that kingdom or country would rise up against country.  This is not a flowering promise for people to embrace, it is a thorn for us to be aware of, and understand what it means.  It means that things are happening (as always) just as Jesus said they would.

This prophecy is a pre-revelation of the sin in society as the world keeps on turning.  And the bad news is it is going to get worse . . . before it gets better.

After reading through the happenings of the Missouri campus and listening to the talking heads the only thing I see and hear is a plethora of people who are totally confused about what to do, and have no idea about how to get a handle on it.

The fact is that every white man, and black man, and green, red, and blue man for that matter is depraved from the substance of their soul.  The Biblical terminology is our “sin nature” – every man, woman, boy and girl has it.  In the context of the Missouri problem, (whether we are talking about Ferguson, or the U of M) the depravity of man, and the spiritual ignorance of the lost has mixed together for a confusing chaos the Lord is not the author of.

There is no doubt that black people have suffered, and do suffer from the abuse of somewhite people. Only a fool denies that fact.

Neither is there any doubt that some black people are so saturated with an “entitlement” spirit and “victimhood” attitude that they think it’s morally wrong to be white.

Don’t misunderstand – there are “entitlement minded white people” as well as “abusive black people”but those are the predominant generalizations that exist in society right now.

One protester that I read of made the statement, “this is 2015, we should be past this.”  I hope I don’t sound condescending when I say this, but what makes us think “2015” has anything to do with it.  The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun.  They could very well have said “It’s 1860 we should be past this.”  They could have said, “It’s 1950 we should be past this.”  Societies and civilizations do not “advance” with the passage of time, they digress.  Admittedly, in many places the fellowship and friendship between the white man and the black man is much better in our generation than it was in the previous, at least on a social level.   On many levels however what we are seeing in Missouri is not just about “black and white” it is about “conservative and liberal.”

The events that led to the conflict were purely a racial in nature.  Some of the things that have come about since the President and other officials have stepped down, have divided people not necessarily along the racial divide, but along the conservative/liberal divide.

At the end of the day, things are happening as Jesus said they would.  It is a tragedy, but it is the truth.  There is only one thing that will change it, and the world does not want to hear it, or accept it.  It is Jesus.  When Jesus enters the heart of  a man, the man changes.  If the man doesn’t change, then Jesus didn’t come in.  Jesus does not just come in to the heart of white men.  Nor does He just change the hearts of black men.  Jesus changes the hearts of lost men.  Until the hearts are changed, the minds will never be convinced.

The problems in Missouri are unredeemed hearts, unBiblical thinking, and uninterested people.  A good solid dose of repentance of sin, and faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing that will change anything, and therefore the only change worth making.


Filed under Uncategorized

Clay Christensen on Religious Freedom (His personal views, not HBS) – YouTube

Source: Clay Christensen on Religious Freedom (His personal views, not HBS) – YouTube

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clay Christensen on Religious Freedom (His personal views, not HBS) – YouTube

Source: Clay Christensen on Religious Freedom (His personal views, not HBS) – YouTube

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Typewriter Artist – YouTube

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


HL Jinx Wilkinson

BLASPHEMY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. All blasphemy against God is a grave sin. But speaking against the Son of man is forgivable. Because when a person receives Jesus as Savior, ALL sins are forgiven.
But blaspheming the Spirit is unforgivable. It implies malicious intent. And it’s completely—thoughtfully,willfully & consciously rejecting that which ENABLES US, the convicting power of the Spirit, to believe in Christ in the first place.
Apparently Most of the Pharisees Had Committed this Sin. When they saw & heard Jesus, they told God’s powerful Spirit: “Go away! Don’t bother us with this man. We’ve made up our minds. Whatever you show us, we won’t believe! We’re still gonna kill Him!” And this is exactly what they did.
And in the process, their malicious unbelief condemned their souls to Hell.

Let me illustrate. This is like an unsaved man I once knew. He was lying on his death bed in the hospital. And a Methodist preacher named Brother Hale came to visit him. And when the preacher walked into the room, the wicked man said: “Get THE HELL out of here!” 
So, the preacher left & never returned to ”bother” this man again. And a short time later, as far as I know, he died in his sins. My friends, what of you? Where are you going when you die? It’s your choice. And there are only two places to choose from—either Heaven or Hell. We must all choose. And there is no middle ground. And Jesus said: “He that is not with me is against me.” 
PLEASE PRAY for Broadcast 152, “The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 12:14-32), going out by shortwave 5 times this coming week on World Wide Christian Radio.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Federalist Papers Number 65—Hamilton

Consider this about the Supreme and Impeachment


Friday, March 7, 1788

Powers of the Senate (Continued)

THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives. A deficiency in the first, would be fatal to the accused; in the last, dangerous to the public tranquillity. The hazard in both these respects, could only be avoided, if at all, by rendering that tribunal more numerous than would consist with a reasonable attention to economy. The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.

These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?

Would it have been an improvement of the plan, to have united the Supreme Court with the Senate, in the formation of the court of impeachments? This union would certainly have been attended with several advantages; but would they not have been overbalanced by the signal disadvantage, already stated, arising from the agency of the same judges in the double prosecution to which the offender would be liable? To a certain extent, the benefits of that union will be obtained from making the chief justice of the Supreme Court the president of the court of impeachments, as is proposed to be done in the plan of the convention; while the inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter will be substantially avoided. This was perhaps the prudent mean. I forbear to remark upon the additional pretext for clamor against the judiciary, which so considerable an augmentation of its authority would have afforded.

Would it have been desirable to have composed the court for the trial of impeachments, of persons wholly distinct from the other departments of the government? There are weighty arguments, as well against, as in favor of, such a plan. To some minds it will not appear a trivial objection, that it could tend to increase the complexity of the political machine, and to add a new spring to the government, the utility of which would at best be questionable. But an objection which will not be thought by any unworthy of attention, is this: a court formed upon such a plan, would either be attended with a heavy expense, or might in practice be subject to a variety of casualties and inconveniences. It must either consist of permanent officers, stationary at the seat of government, and of course entitled to fixed and regular stipends, or of certain officers of the State governments to be called upon whenever an impeachment was actually depending. It will not be easy to imagine any third mode materially different, which could rationally be proposed. As the court, for reasons already given, ought to be numerous, the first scheme will be reprobated by every man who can compare the extent of the public wants with the means of supplying them. The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union; the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.

But though one or the other of the substitutes which have been examined, or some other that might be devised, should be thought preferable to the plan in this respect, reported by the convention, it will not follow that the Constitution ought for this reason to be rejected. If mankind were to resolve to agree in no institution of government, until every part of it had been adjusted to the most exact standard of perfection, society would soon become a general scene of anarchy, and the world a desert. Where is the standard of perfection to be found? Who will undertake to unite the discordant opinions of a whole commuity, in the same judgment of it; and to prevail upon one conceited projector to renounce his infallible criterion for the fallible criterion of his more conceited neighbor? To answer the purpose of the adversaries of the Constitution, they ought to prove, not merely that particular provisions in it are not the best which might have been imagined, but that the plan upon the whole is bad and pernicious.


Return to Table of Contents.

Formatting for this online version of the Federalist Papers Copyright © 2014 Steve Farrell and The Moral Liberal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What Josh Duggar Proves for Biblical Christianity

Originally posted on :

”  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” – Romans 7:18

  “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.  For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” – Galatians 5:16-17

I do not know Josh Duggar, or the Duggar Family for that matter. I, like most people, only know them through the media.  They have my prayers, and for all intents and practical purposes, I’m still on their side.

The things that they publicly stand for, are the things every right minded individual ought to stand for; Biblical truth, personal…

View original 840 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

John Bunyan died AUGUST 31, 1688

John Bunyan died AUGUST 31, 1688

Pilgrim's Progress first edition 1678 American Minute with Bill Federer

He was imprisoned 12 years for preaching without a license from the government.

This was John Bunyan, who died AUGUST 31, 1688.

Born in Bedford, England, John Bunyan was a poor, unskilled tinker by trade.

In 1657, at age 29, he became a Baptist minister and was arrested for having religious meetings, being imprisoned 1660-1672 and 1675-1676.

John Bunyan wrote in a Relation of My Imprisonment:

The justice…issued out his warrant to take me…

as if we that were to meet together…to do some fearful business, to the destruction of the country;

when alas! the constable, when he came in, found us only with our Bibles in our hands, ready to speak and hear the word of God…

So I was taken and forced to depart…

But before I went away, I spake some few words of counsel and encouragement to the people, declaring to them…

that they would not be discouraged, for it was a mercy to suffer upon so good account…We suffer as Christians…

Better be the persecuted, than the persecutors.”

During his imprisonment, John Bunyan supported his family by making shoelaces.

It was during this time that he began writing The Pilgrim’s Progress, eventually published in 1678.

It was an allegory of a pilgrim, named Christian, who fled from the City of Destruction and was directed by Evangelist to follow the straight and narrow path.

He overcame temptations, depressions, deceptions, and persecutions till he reached the Celestial City of Zion.

The friends and dangers that Christian met along the way inspired many subsequent novels, such as:

Mark Twain’s Innocents Abroad or the New Pilgrim’s Progress (1869);

C.S. Lewis’ Pilgrim’s Regress (1933); and

L. Frank Baum’s Wizard of Oz (1900).

John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress was translated into over 100 languages and, after the Bible, was the world’s best-seller for hundreds of years.

It was found in nearly every colonial New England home, along with the Bible and Fox’s Book of Martyrs.

Ben Franklin wrote in his Autobiography:

From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books.

Pleased with The Pilgrim’s Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan’s works in separate little volumes….”

Franklin continued:

My old favorite author, Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress…has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible.”

President Grover Cleveland had memorized The Pilgrim’s Progress as a youth, commenting:

I have always felt that my training as a minister’s son has been more valuable to me as a strengthening influence than any other incident in life.”

President Theodore Roosevelt stated while laying the cornerstone of the office building of the House of Representatives, April 14, 1906:

In Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress you may recall the description of the man with the muck-rake,

the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck-rake in his hand, who was offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake,

but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote January 19, 1936:

When Theodore Roosevelt died, the Secretary of his class at Harvard, in sending classmates a notice of his passing, added this quotation from Pilgrim’s Progress:

My sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage, and my courage and skill to him that can get it.

My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me that I have fought His battles who now will be my rewarder.’”

President Bill Clinton remarked at the Retirement of General Colin Powell in Arlington, Virginia, September 30, 1993:

General Powell, I am reminded of the words of another young valiant warrior, spoken when, like you, he was finishing one journey and beginning a second.

John Bunyan wrote in Pilgrim’s Progress of the warrior valiant at the end of his life, as he prepared to present himself to the Almighty,

My sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage and my courage and skill to him that can get them. My marks and scars I carry with me to be a witness for me, to Him who shall be my rewarder.’”

President Ronald Reagan greeted Australia’s Prime Minister, June 30, 1981, referring to John Bunyan:

Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, ‘We are all travelers in what John Bunyan calls the wilderness of this world.

And the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend – they keep us worthy of ourselves.”

John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress began:

As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where was a den, and I laid me down in that place to sleep: and, as I slept, I dreamed a dream.

I dreamed, and behold, I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back.

I looked, and saw him open the book, and read therein; and, as he read, he wept, and trembled; and, not being able longer to contain, he brake out with a lamentable cry, saying, What shall I do?”

Later in The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan wrote:

Christian ran thus till he came at a place somewhat ascending, and upon that place stood a cross…

So I saw in my dream, that just as Christian came up with the cross, his burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his back.”

Further in The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan wrote:

Then said Christian, You make me afraid, but whither shall I fly to be safe?… To go back is nothing but death; to go forward is fear of death, and life-everlasting beyond it. I will yet go forward…

Frighted with the sight of the lions…Christian said to himself again,

These beasts range in the night for their prey; and if they should meet with me in the dark…how should I escape being by them torn in pieces?…

He lift up his eyes, and behold there was a very stately palace before him… He entered into a very narrow passage…he espied two lions in the way…

The porter at the lodge…perceiving that Christian made a halt as if he would go back, cried unto him, saying,

Is thy strength so small? Fear not the lions, for they are chained, and are placed there for trial of faith where it is, and for discovery of those that had none. Keep in the midst of the path, and no hurt shall come unto thee…

He went on, trembling for fear of the lions, but taking good heed to the directions of the porter; he heard them roar, but they did him no harm…”

John Bunyan continued:

But now, in this Valley of Humiliation, poor Christian was hard put to it…a foul fiend coming over the field to meet him; his name is Apollyon.

Then did Christian begin to be afraid, and to cast in his mind whether to go back or to stand his ground.

But he considered again that he had no armour for his back; and therefore thought that to turn the back to him might give him the greater advantage with ease to pierce him with his darts.

Therefore he resolved to venture and stand his ground…”

John Bunyan wrote further:

The monster was hideous to behold; he was clothed with scales…wings like a dragon, feet like a bear, and out of his belly came fire and smoke…

Apollyon straddled quite over the whole breadth of the way, and said…prepare thyself to die; for I swear by my infernal den, that thou shalt go no further; here will I spill thy soul.

And with that he threw a flaming dart at his breast; but Christian had a shield in his hand, with which he caught it…

Apollyon as fast made at him, throwing darts as thick as hail; by the which, notwithstanding all that Christian could do to avoid it, Apollyon wounded him in his head, his hand, and foot…”

Bunyan concluded:

This sore combat lasted for above half a day, even till Christian was almost quite spent; for you must know that Christian, by reason of his wounds, must needs grow weaker and weaker…

Christian’s sword flew out of his hand.

Then said Apollyon, I am sure of thee now.

And with that he had almost pressed him to death, so that Christian began to despair of life;

but as God would have it, while Apollyon was fetching of his last blow, thereby to make a full end of this good man, Christian nimbly stretched out his hand for his sword, and caught it, saying,

Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy; when I fall I shall arise; and with that gave him a deadly thrust, which made him give back…

And with that Apollyon spread forth his dragon’s wings, and sped him away, that Christian for a season saw him no more…

A more unequal match can hardly be, —
Christian must fight an angel; but you see,
The valiant man by handling Sword and Shield,
Doth make him, though a Dragon, quit the field.”

Bill Federer The Moral Liberal Contributing Editor,William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One Nation Under Judgment: How Same-Sex Marriage Is God’s Judgment on a People

Originally posted on :

This last week five of the nine Supreme Court Justices of the United States decreed that the U.S. Constitution does not legally prevent men from marrying men, and women from marrying women.  Not being a constitutional lawyer, I am not qualified to speak to the legalities of the matter or the nuances and principles hidden within the language of our nations preeminent legal document.  The end result therefore, is as one writer put it, stating that “genderless marriage” has legal protection under the law; which sets the legal stage for a society that increasingly welcomes the idea that gender is just a matter of personal choice.  Now in reality there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.  While it does not actually exist, there is a legal pretension that it does.  When I speak of same-sex marriage I am speaking of that legal notion, not any real existence of it.


View original 2,528 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

An Irrelevant Ruling: The Supreme Kangaroo Court – there is still no such thing as same-sex marriage.

Originally posted on :

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” – Proverbs 29:2

In the flesh, there is great mourning today. – Our country has sanctioned and celebrated what our President calls a victory, but our God calls an abomination.

In the spirit, there is great joy.  The course of the age is going just as our Lord said it would, and as the darkness creeps across the landscape our heart is lifted with anticipation for the Son-rise.

The bad news for the president and the secular left is that their version of love did not gain a victory, but rather it has done more and more to secure its defeat.  In the ultimate sense of the truth, love does not win, the LORD does.  As Franklin Graham so eloquently put it, “The supreme court did not define marriage, therefore it has no…

View original 430 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized