The Offering Of The Natural

by Oswald Chambers

"Nothing has any power to alter a man save the incoming of the life of Jesus

and that is the only sign that he is born again.”

 

"Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman." Galatians 4:22

Paul is not dealing with sin in this chapter of Galatians, but with the relation of the natural to the spiritual. The natural must be turned into the spiritual by sacrifice, otherwise a tremendous divorce will be produced in the actual life. Why should God ordain the natural to be sacrificed? God did not. It is not God's order, but His permissive will. God's order was that the natural should be transformed into the spiritual by obedience; it is sin that made it necessary for the natural to be sacrificed.

Abraham had to offer up Ishmael before he offered up Isaac. Some of us are trying to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God before we have sacrificed the natural. The only way in which we can offer a spiritual sacrifice to God is by presenting our bodies a living sacrifice. Sanctification means more than deliverance from sin, it means the deliberate commitment of myself whom God has saved to God, and that I do not care what it costs.

If we do not sacrifice the natural to the spiritual, the natural life will mock at the life of the Son of God in us and produce a continual swither. This is always the result of an undisciplined spiritual nature. We go wrong because we stubbornly refuse to discipline ourselves, physically, morally or mentally. "I wasn't disciplined when I was a child." You must discipline yourself now. If you do not, you will ruin the whole of your personal life for God.

God is not with our natural life while we pamper it; but when we put it out in the desert and resolutely keep it under, then God will be with it; and He will open up wells and oases, and fulfill all His promises for the natural.




Endowing the U.S. Dollar with real value

by Wayne Flaherty

As America’s fiat paper money continues in its death spiral toward zero value, there is a very real way to endow it with a minimum value no matter what the Fed does to it. Our government should change the size of the dollar, the composition of the paper on which it is printed, and the method by which it is delivered to the end user (no pun intended).

Were the American dollar made in rolls 4 inches wide by 4-1/2 inches in diameter and wound around a 1 inch diameter cardboard tube its value would be guaranteed forever. There would be no need for central banks or even Fort Knox. Every American would become a guardian of the nation’s wealth by storing their fair share in their bathrooms.

The politicians and central bankers who spent the last half a century stealing and debasing our currency would suddenly find themselves able to possess and control only their fair share. That would make the two most profitable occupations far less attractive. After what is the use of being elected to office if there is not treasury from which to line your pockets? What is the use of being a central banker if you can’t privatize the profits and publicize the losses?

We could make it a constitutional amendment. It won’t need a number – we’ll just call it the “Last Amendment”. If you think about it, the possibilities are endless.




Two Supreme Ct. Decisions the Anti-Gunners Don't Want You to See

by Carl F. Worden

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45). Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.


DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED

 
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
 
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
 
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."


The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917