Why Stand With Israel Today?

 President Obama announced on May, 19, 2011 that as a baseline for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel must cede territory to the 1967 borders with Palestine. This demand would dramatically put the security of Israel in great jeopardy for the simple fact that the current borders reflect the necessary security measures established because of the conflicts with the Palestinians since the 1948 recognition of the state of Israel.

If Israel were to evacuate from area acquired since the 1967 conflict, Israel would be exposed to attacks by enemies who have openly and continually vowed to destroy Israel.

Here is a paraphrase of several reasons to stand with Israel as stated by Jack Hayford in Charisma Magazine –http://www.findchristianmagazines.com/

1) The Jews are God’s chosen people according to God’s divine order

In Genesis 12:3, the Lord says to Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him         who curse you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Gen 22:18 God speaking to Abraham says: “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed”

2) As Christians we are one with the Jewish people, we become engrafted Jews

Romans 2:29 “… but he is a Jew who is one inwardly…”

Galatians 3:28-29 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise”

3) God has declared the land of Israel to be His own and committed it to Abraham and to his descendants through Isaac forever. These promises have never been rescinded.

Genesis 17:8 “I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession”

Joel 1:6 “For a nation has come against My land…”

4) The present conflicts in Israel we’re not in any way brought about by the Jews

 Israel is merely defending the land that the UN established for them in 1948. The Palestinians on the other hand have never acknowledged the right of the Jewish state to exist and have vowed to destroy it to this day. None of the surrounding Arab nations have offered to cede any land at all to the Palestinians, though they are well able. Most of the world is not even aware of this and nobody is bothering to tell them.

5) The animosities of parts of the Arab world are driven by spiritual forces of wickedness that will be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

6) God will prosper those who love Israel

 Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May they prosper who love you

Why Stand With Israel Today?

Why Stand With Israel Today?

Is America Founded a Christian Nation?

Is America Founded a Christian Nation?
By Will Armstrong

It is exasperating to see a false idea continually promoted as truth, particularly one that insults the God we serve and the country we love. The idea that America liberty is tied to our supposed secular history used to be a fringe idea of liberal radicals but now has become mainstream.

This year the church state controversy was brought to the forefront during the Coons-O’Donnell debate, and the Christian Legal v. Martinez Supreme Court case. During a debate with Chris Coons, Christine O’Donnell asked an audience of law students and professors “where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?” The raucous laughter that broke out in response to the question is typical and sadly revealing of the attitudes and beliefs in our institutes of higher learning. Ms. O’Donnell was of course correct, because the Constitution has no reference to the phrase “separation of church and state”. Pondering the response, you might wonder, have they read the Constitution themselves and if they have, did they think it humorous that its plain meaning should be understood as written? Or did they find it amusing that someone still believes that the Constitution is the highest authority for our laws?

In the Christian legal v. Martinez case a student led Christian organization was denied use of a publicly funded college facility because they refused to accept unrepentant homosexuals as members. The ruling was 5 to 4 in favor of defendant Martinez who represented Hasting College. Justice Alito’s dissent was entirely accurate, he said; “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide- open.” What a travesty that the supreme court ruled in favor of the college and not the Christian legal organization. Do they really believe that they are following the founder’s vision by forcing a Christian organization to accept homosexuals as members?
The prevailing belief in our schools is that although there may have been many Christians at the time of our nation’s founding, America was founded a secular nation. Although according to a recent poll 55% of American’s believe that America’s was founded a Christian nation. When discussing America’s founding even a liberal columnist in the New York Times recently admitted that those advocating for a Christian nation “have a bit of history on their side.” This is an understatement!

Pre Revolutionary period

The original settlers didn’t come to this country so they could join a secular society or even primarily for freedom of religion, they came to spread the gospel and be free to practice a purer form of Christianity. They considered the Anglican Church in England to be backslidden and they already had freedom of religion in Holland. Holland had the greatest amount of religious toleration in Europe, what bothered the pilgrims about the Dutch was their lack of fervency toward God. Any questions about this can be answered by reading the Mayflower compact or real stories of the pilgrims. The 1620 Mayflower Compact as read from William Bradford’s personal account says this “Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid”. The Mayflower Compact was not a mere political formality but was considered a sacred covenant between the pilgrims and God. Their stated purpose was to plant a colony for glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith.

Nine years later in 1629 the first Charter of Massachusetts said this “For the directing, ruling, and disposeing of all other Matters and Thinges, whereby our said People may be soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good life and orderlie Conversacon, maie ynn and incite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Savior of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth”. The clear purpose here was to have a Christian society and to advance the kingdom of God. Succeeding charters for The New Haven colony, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Harvard and Yale Universities all contain similar language”.

Despite the years of effort of liberal revisionists to omit, distort and mislead Americans about their true Christian heritage, the original quotes read in context, speak for themselves. The Christian heritage of this country just won’t go away, because it’s the truth.

Founders Quotes

The Founding Fathers vision was to have Christianity shape the nation and government but leaving the freedom to accept or reject Christ and Christianity with no coercion. The reason for this is biblical in that God wants us to come to Him by choice. They also wanted to avoid a state sponsored Christian denomination where others denominations were prohibited.

George Washington certainly didn’t want a secular nation, he said this in his 1797 farewell address “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers”. He calls America a Christian nation and clearly expects Christianity to play a central role in government.

Thomas Paine is considered to be one of the most unorthodox and radical of the founders in his religious beliefs would have had more in common with the so called religious right than with today’s liberals. When addressing a group of French intellectuals Paine argued that schools must teach science and philosophy with reference to the God who created them. Today the secular ACLU would want Paine’s head on a platter along with the rest of the Founders for daring to express such strong religious convictions in public

Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment, wrote in 1801 about his concern was that by adding so many new books in schools, there would not be enough time for the Bible, he insisted that the Bible regain pre-eminence in the classroom. He saw no contradiction with his conviction and the first amendment establishment clause and neither did Thomas Jefferson and almost the entire federal government in Washington when they attended church services in the capital building with government paid chaplains presiding. These services continued in the same matter until about the time of the civil war. Jefferson also used federal funds to build churches and promote Christianity among the Indians.

It should seem strange and an outrage that today’s Supreme Court should deny the use of a federally funded college building to a Christian group when the founding Fathers used the capital building for church services. All this is due to a perverted understanding of the establishment clause that the founders certainly did not support. Isn’t it ironic that the liberals think of Jefferson as one of their own! Jefferson would have sickened by today’s liberals and their perverted notions.

Founding Documents

It is true that our founding documents, the declaration of Independence and The Constitution, avoided Christian language most likely to avoid quarrels between the various denominations that existed in the colonies. It was decided that religion was a matter best left to individuals and their local and state governments. The founding documents do contain language that is primarily biblical such as creator, judge, and providence. The Romans and Greeks didn’t have a single all powerful God who created all things. The God of the Deists was the watchmaker God who started things up in the beginning and then was uninvolved in the affairs of men. The Romans, Greeks and Deists had no concept of natural or inalienable rights, this is a Christian concept. The notion of servant leadership prescribed by our Constitution for those holding government offices would have been a foreign idea to the Greeks and Romans; this is primarily a Christian concept. Moreover, the Constitution ends with the citation “In the year of our Lord 1787”.

Some say that the Article V1 religious test ban implies a secular state. At the time when the Constitution was written, many feared that a federal religious test would nullify their existing state test oaths and religious establishments. The unchallenged assumption was that an oath of office itself was a non-sectarian acknowledgment of God, which was considered a religious test of sorts. Many state constitutions contain the language of the Article V1 religious test ban and also the requirement of believing the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The Tennessee Constitution adopted in 1796 had the language of article V1 and also stated that “no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State." Other states had similar provisions written their constitutions and the Christian requirements implied in the oaths of office were often emphasized at the state ratifying conventions.

School textbook omissions

According to Mary Jones author of the website “Forsaken Roots”; our school textbooks have omitted the following facts; in 1782 Congress voted to have the bible used in all our schools, and that 106 of 108 of our first colleges were Christian.

Also says Jones, in 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court banned this prayer “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country, Amen." The court offered this justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children." If this is true and I believe it is, this should be an outrage to every true American, firstly because we sat by and let it happen and secondly because our government appointed such Godless and foolish individuals to our highest courts.

A Christian Nation

Our presidents from George Washington to George Bush have referred to America as a Christian nation; Barack Obama is the first president to publicly to deny this.
Supreme court Justice Brewer declared “this is a Christian nation” in the majority opinion of the 1892 Holy Trinity vs. U.S. case. In 1952 Supreme Court Justice William Douglas wrote the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clauson stating that "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being”.

We as a nation need to reevaluate what America really is, a Christian nation! Moreover, we must understand that our constitution is designed only for a moral and Christian people.

The Separation of Church and State

The ignorance of Americans on their own history and constitution has never been clearer, than on the issue of separation of church and state. The phrase originally cited in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbery Connecticut Baptists, soon after Jefferson had become president on March 4th 1801.

Many Americans believe that this nation was founded a strictly secular state. Many actually believe they are patriotically upholding the founder’s vision by making sure religion is completely removed from all public life.

Groups such as the ACLU and Americans United for The Separation of Church and State routinely file suits in court to intimidate and silence any religious voice in American public life. Cases are promoted to prevent nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments, Crosses from being displayed in public areas. Other cases promote denying the Boy Scouts use of government facilities, removal of (“In God We Trust”) on currency, censoring of school graduation and athletic event prayers, firing schoolteachers for leaving bibles on their desks.

At the same time, these groups turn a blind eye to the promotion of other religions, such as providing prayer rooms for Muslim students in public schools or school sponsored field trips to mosques, soliciting students to participate in Muslim religious rites as an educational experience. Public schools also promote new age religious ideas and forms of witchcraft as enlightened ideas, while Christianity is presented as part of our past ignorance, intolerance and bigotry.

Many who use the term “Separation of Church and State” would be surprised to discover that it’s nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The phrase was taken from a political letter written by Jefferson to the Connecticut Baptists assuring them of their concerns about religious liberty. The Baptists in Connecticut had long been a minority in an area dominated by Federalist Congregationalists, and Jefferson wanted to assure them that the federal government would not interfere in showing preference to any Christian denomination above another. England and most of Europe had oppressed Christian minorities for hundreds of years, by mandating a single state Christian denomination. In England the Anglican Church was the state mandated church, all other Christian sects or denominations were prohibited.

Years after writing the Letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson himself regularly attended worship services conducted in the Capital building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the War Office and Treasury building both belonging to the executive branch of government. In 1803 Jefferson used federal funds to erect churches and promote Christianity among the Indians and provided government support for Christian schools.

The evidence for the Christian foundation for America’s society and government is so overwhelming that it’s difficult to comprehend how this could be misunderstood by so many.

George Washington, in his Farwell address to the nation said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Thomas Jefferson said this, “The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He (God) has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”

James Madison, the 4th US president, father of the bill of rights, said this “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”

John Jay America’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court said this in 1797, two years after serving his term, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Jefferson’s Wall of separation of church and state only placed limits on the power of the federal government to interfere in matters of religion. The wall was intended to separate the institutions of church and in the Capital building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the War Office and Treasury building both belonging to the executive branch of government. In 1803 Jefferson used federal funds to erect churches and promote Christianity among the Indians and provided government support for Christian schools.

The evidence for the Christian foundation for America’s society and government is so overwhelming that it’s difficult to comprehend how this could be misunderstood by so many.

George Washington, in his Farwell address to the nation said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Thomas Jefferson said this, “The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He (God) has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”

James Madison, the 4th US president, father of the bill of rights, said this “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”

John Jay America’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court said this in 1797, two years after serving his term, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Jefferson’s Wall of separation of church and state only placed limits on the power of the federal government to interfere in matters of religion. The wall was intended to separate the institutions of church and state at the federal level not to separate religion from the civil government. Matters of religion were to rest with individual State and local governments and the people.

During the time period of the ratification of the first amendment, all state constitutions with the exception of Rhode Island, had a state sponsored religion. The states would never ratified the first amendment if they believed it would override the states right to sponsor their own Christian denomination.

The First Amendment was only proposed to place limitations on the government and not on religion. The freedom of the press, guaranteed in the first amendment, only places restrictions of the government to control the media not to protect the government from the press. In this way the press would be free and independent of the government. The same was purposed for the freedom of religion, government was never to be protected from religious influence, churches and individuals were to be protected from the federal governments imposition of a national Christian denomination.

Jefferson affirmed on many occasions that the federal government had no power over religious rights or the free exercise of religion. Jefferson said this at his second inaugural address in 1805,“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general (federal) government.”

So where did this distorted idea of separating religion from public originate? In the 1830’s and 40’s a new influx of Catholic immigrants caused much concern to the established Protestant majority. Groups such as the Know Nothings and later the Ku Klux Klan advocated separatism to prevent Catholic influence in public life.

In the late 1940’s and beyond many felt Catholic parochial schools posed a threat to public schools, protestant majorities and democratic principles says Professor Daniel L.Dreisbach in his Article “The Mythical Wall of Separation: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse”. Dreisbach further stated, that the ACLU, anti-Catholics elites such as Hugo Black, Protestants and others for the separation of church and state, prevailed upon the courts to secularize the state. The 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education extended the exclusion of aid to religion to federal and state governments. No previous court had interpreted Jefferson’s phrase to imply that the state was to be free any religious influence.

In the 1930’s Hitler recognized that the only institution that stood in the way his plans was the church. So Hitler promoted his propaganda with slogans such as "Politics do not belong in the Church." And "The Church must be separate from the State”, says Bryan Fischer in his article “Separation of Church and State: Straight from the Mind of Hitler” quoting Professor John Conway’s book “The Nazi persecution of the Churches 1933-45”. The former Soviet Union also enforced a strict separation of church and state only allowing the influence of the church to remain within its four walls. These phrases are virtually identical to those promoted by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

In December 1934, Hitler said this in a campaign speech, “But we will ensure the purging from our public life of all those priests who have mistaken their profession and who ought to have been politicians and not pastors", noted Bryan Fischer in his above mentioned article. Hitler’s objectives here are virtually identical with those of the ACLU.

The idea of separating religion from all civil government would have alarmed Jefferson and the founding fathers that clearly understood that the general principles of Christianity must have the encouragement and support of the state. They knew that without a Christian foundation and people, their republic would not survive. They understood that the source of our inalienable rights and freedom came Jesus himself and that Christianity was at the foundation of our American government and society.

Is the US Constitution a Living Document that should change over time?

Is the US Constitution a Living Document that should change over time?
By Will Armstrong


The theory that the Constitution is a “Living Document” has been dominant since F.D.R. tried to pack the Supreme Court in the late 1930’s. The idea of an evolving Constitution has helped to transform our government from a limited one, charged with protecting individual rights, into a Nanny State that promises to take care of all our needs and make all our decisions.

The Judiciary, since the Great Depression, has made laws and created rights based on general statements in the Bill of Rights ignoring specific provisions in the 9th and 10th amendments to limit government functions.

Our Constitution was created to protect our inalienable or God given rights and to prevent arbitrary government intrusion into our lives. By the time the Constitution was written America had been subject to oppressive British rule for two hundred years. Our founding Fathers knew from experience what type of government they wanted to avoid.

The Constitution divided our government horizontally on the federal level into three branches; executive, judicial and legislative and vertically into federal, state and local governments. The purpose was to institute a system of checks and balances to promote accountability and prevent seizure of power by any single branch.

The 9th and 10th amendments purposely enumerates (lists) the specific functions of all branches and levels of government. The purpose being to create a government that is constitutionally limited. The Constitution states that whatever rights and powers are not given to the government are reserved for the people, making it clear that the government is to be a servant not a master to the people.

The concept of The Constitution being a Living document refers to theory that its interpretation needs to evolve as our culture and moral standards change. The central argument being, that how could you directly apply a two-hundred year old legal document to modern times. Two hundred years ago there we’re slaves, women had no voting rights, there we’re no food stamps and abortion wasn’t an issue.

Some proponents of the Living Document, even go on to say that the founders intended the Constitution to evolve as society changed because it was written in general terms thereby leaving room for broad interpretations.

On the surface, the argument for a Living Document sounds reasonable and fair, they reason that they would prefer a “Living document” to its implied opposite, a “dead document” written two hundred years ago by those they consider to be slave owning, sexist, religiously fanatical and wealthy white guys.

The problem with Living document theory is that the final authority for legal decisions are judges not the Constitution. Supreme Court Justices get to decide how and when our morals and culture have evolved or changed. An example of this might be that of an older law prohibiting eighteen year olds from driving a car. Judges may surmise for instance, that because there we’re no seat belts when this law was written that it would be reasonable to amend the law to say that eighteen year olds without seatbelts are prohibited from driving.

We can see from this humorous example how the clear intent of the law was altered by permitting judges to interpret the law based on the evolving cultural times such as is the case with the Living Document theory. A Supreme Court judge can now effectively enact a new law without a vote through court decisions, in addition to their legitimate role of interpreting the law as written. So the judges can now usurp the legislative function of Congress to effectively make laws by judicial fiat. Supreme Court Judges have now evolved into all wise philosopher kings who make our rules for living and who tell us what to think.

Many are not aware that the executive and legislative branches are also charged with upholding and protecting the Constitution. Federal employees, military members, civil servants and Congress all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Now if these Supreme Court Justices are the only ones wise enough to understand Constitutions’ meaning what are rest of us swearing to uphold? Something that can be altered at a judges whim? Why wouldn’t it be meant to be understood by all?

As most of us know it takes a two thirds majority in both houses of congress to amend the Constitution. There have only been 17 admendments passed after the first ten in our Bill of Rights we’re passed in 1787. Cooperation of all the branches and levels of government are also necessary to advance new legislation. Also governmental checks and balances along with the enumeration of government powers provides accountability and makes it very difficult to alter our laws. Its no accident that changing or making new laws are cumbersome by design, the founders did that on purpose. Now why would all this be necessary if the courts could just change the law through means of ruling by evolving interpretations as is the case with a Living Document approach.

The Living Constitution threatens the inalienable rights and protections our forefather fought and died for, by consolidating power in government hands and changing our limited government to an unlimited one where rights are given by the government and the only protected rights are government rights.

Universal healthcare

Universal healthcare has been packaged to sound like something it clearly is not. Many think that it means that quality healthcare will be available for all at virtually no cost. They feel that after all, isn’t quality healthcare a right, we know its in the Constitution somewhere! Not! Healthcare sponsors claim that healthcare costs and deficits will be reduced, quality improved, competition and choices increased, with access for all.

These claims remind me of the promises of pyramid schemes that the young and naïve fall prey to. When something doesn’t smell right, follow the money and ask yourself who really benefits? The government will control the money, so who do you think will really make the important decisions? Since when has the government saved tax payer money, increase competition or run anything well? The senate runs its own dining facility, it has failed to make a profit and has incurred large debts, do we really want them to directly manage 1/6th of our national economy?

Liberal politicians who pontificate about the rich paying their fair share often cheat on their own taxes, they never complain about getting too much back on their taxes or offer to contribute their own wealth to government causes. Politicians and their special interest groups are the only ones who benefit from universal healthcare. Congress, by the way has its own private healthcare system, so they won’t be subject to the new universal health plan that they have enacted.

Some claim that universal healthcare systems are working well in other countries. They may know someone from England or Canada that say their system is great. Their foreign friends may even belief it works because either they belong to a special interest group that has been bumped up the on the waiting list or haven’t had major health issues.

Universal healthcare systems tried on a state level in this country or abroad, have all experienced similar problems. These problems include soaring deficits, out of control costs, rationing, incompetence, pilfering and special privilege to certain groups. What incentives will exist for physicians to improve their skills, or medical technology to improve when wages and prices are set by the government?

Many want to believe that with a stroke of the pen the government can take care of every problem. No one wants to believe they’ve been lied to. The truth is this problem is not a simple one, we are going to have to make some hard choices to turn the system around and get expenses under control.

The heart of the problem is that about 85% of healthcare expenses are paid by someone other than those receiving care and about half the expenses are paid for by the government. The current system also provides incentives for employers to provide health insurance. There is little incentive for individuals or the government to monitor healthcare expenses.

Some solutions to the problems in healthcare involve putting people in control of their medical dollars, through such measures as medical savings accounts in tandem with high deductible low cost insurance, incentives in the tax code for individuals not employers to buy health insurance. Consumer demand will spur competition between insurance companies and medical service providers.

Other measures include relaxing medical licensing requirements to allow nurses, physicians assistants and others to provide some services that now requires a doctors care. Allowing employers and individuals to purchase health plans from other states will break state monopolies and lower prices. Moving away from prepaid medical care for routine procedures and returning to traditional insurance with flexible savings accounts will provide incentives not to overuse medical care. Over time our single payer systems such as Medicare and Medicaid could be phased out and replaced by individual based health savings accounts and high deductible health insurance with minimal government assistance.

Sometimes the truth hurts but sooner or we have to face it. We can’t blame the rich, the evil corporations or even big government for problems we’ve created. We as a nation have allowed and even encouraged the government to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves .Now we need to take some decisive and even painful steps to take our nation back!

Explaining the fullness of the Holy Spirit

Explaining the fullness of the Holy Spirit
By Will Armstrong


To be filled with the Holy spirit is to be filled with God’s very presence. Its greater than anything we could ever touch.

The Holy spirit is a person, he is God, he is Jehovah, he is the power of God.

The Spirit is our constant companion. He is the one we have fellowship with. He is our partner, teacher, helper, guide but also our boss.

About ten years ago I felt the tangible presence of God for the first time. After a revival meeting in Toronto Canada, a women from Scotland laid hands on me and I felt the power of God strongly, I actually shook for about ten minutes and also felt a deep peace come over me.

Later that year a friend and I we’re painting a house and we went to lunch at Burger King. As we we’re walking into the restaurant there was a crowd watching helplessly as a women was choking to death on some food. The ambulance had been called but had not arrived. I felt the Lord leading me to lay hands on the women a pray, as I did within about 30 seconds she was fine. The husband thanked me for my prayers and acknowledged that they may have saved her life.

I believe the reason I had the boldness and faith to pray for this women was because of the filling of the holy Spirit. I have had many such experiences with God, usually not as dramatic but I hope and believe to be used in even greater ways.

To be full of the spirit we must first empty ourselves. Obedience is the key to drawing near to God. “ If you draw close to me, I will draw close to you”- James 4:8. Obedience to God by the leading of the spirit brings purity. “ Walk in the spirit and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh”- Gal 5:16.

We are bold, fearless and filled with power as we are consumed by God. Since its part of Gods nature to heal, we will carry God’s healing anointing. We will have power over sin and Satan, having signs and wonders following us.

When we are full of the spirit we will hear Gods voice and draw ever closer to God. To be filled with the holy spirit we must be in the secret place with God continually. Everything depends on our intimacy with God.

When filled with the Holy Spirit opposition will arise because Satan’s kingdom is being threatened.

The Spirit will equip us for every good work, to meet the destiny God has for us and for all we’re to accomplish. To be full of the Spirit is the only true qualification for ministry and is necessary to have that abundant life and exciting life God promised. A live worth living or dying for.