Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

If you don’t want to own a gun, don’t own a gun.  No one should force you to own one.  But if you are a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, no one should be able to prevent you from doing so.  This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. 

The author of this article does a good job of debunking poor theology, and explaining why it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to arm and DEFEND themselves.  The gun in the hands of the righteous is NOT a tool of vengeance, but rather a tool of defense.

+

---

---

A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

BY JD HALL · DECEMBER 23, 2015

I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.

It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.

Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.

My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries. 

Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,

The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.

I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.

Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of  self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.

Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:

The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world. 

One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.

Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…

For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “The ruler does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.

2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.

A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of  Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”

If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.

3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.

Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.

Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.

4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword. 

This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.

[Editor’s Note: This is Part A in addressing Piper’s errors. Part B will come shortly after Christmas. This post was contributed by JD Hall]

*Update: JD was intending to write Part B to address Piper’s errors. Because of his holiday schedule, he will instead be on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Program to discuss the rest of his concerns, this Christmas evening. You can listen here.

Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/12/23/a-response-to-john-piper-why-gun-ownership-is-biblical-and-good-part-a/
+

---

Is Obama a Psychopath? Signs point to ‘Yes.’

▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

Is Obama a psychopath?  It’s impossible to be sure without a clinical evaluation, but Dr. Loudon and several other psychologists have pointed out the markers that suggest he may very well be a psychopath.  Compulsive lying?  CHECK.  Blaming others for failures and shortcomings?  CHECK.  Torturing animals?  Well, he told us he ate his dog.

My money would be on a diagnosis of psychopathy.

+

---

IS OBAMA A PSYCHOPATH?

Exclusive: Gina Loudon urges a closer look at the president’s decisions

Published: 04/06/2014 at 5:16 PM

It is safe to say that most politicians these days could be diagnosed with a range of mental conditions, and many would likely be labeled sociopaths or psychopaths.

The terms psychopath and sociopath are often used interchangeably, even by mental health professionals. The symptoms are somewhat consistent between the two: lack of conscience, no moral compass, manipulative, low range of emotions, interpersonally insensitive. The psychopath is deadly. He is well spoken, charismatic, fearless, controlling, socially potent, a habitual liar, calm to a disturbing degree in the face of chaos and cold hearted. He is a master at blaming others.

Christmas Is Not a Political Hobby Horse

Non-Christians and liberals love to twist and distort the truth so it either looks good for them, or just doesn’t look as bad. And, yes, there are some Christians that do it as well, but then you have to ask have they gone astray or were they ever Christians in the first place.  Not for us to judge.  Gary DeMar’s article below does a marvelous job illustrating that point.

Now it’s not just liberals. The enemies of this country, namely the pushers of islam, are using our American system of laws and government, our western “sensibilities” against us, and our religion(s) against us.

Everything good thing that has ever been created has eventually been corrupted and used for (sometimes) nefarious purposes for which it was not intended, sometimes by evil people. Pretty much every cult in the world has come from people misquoting the Bible and taking it out of context. Jim Jones and the Guyana massacre, the Waco Branch Davidian massacre, and many other examples around the world show how a charismatic person can influence people by lying to them while telling them just enough of what sounds right to them to get them to accept what they’re being told.

Many branches of the protestant movement can be considered as cults because without contextual Biblical basis they cross the line by saying that how they worship is THE way to worship instead of saying it is A way to worship. I’ve visited churches where people would stand up and supposedly begin speaking in tongues. Then church leaders would say something to the effect that you couldn’t go to heaven if you didn’t speak in tongues. Really? The way I’ve read it, and the way every Bible scholar I’ve talked to reads it, speaking in tongues is indeed a gift, but not everyone has that gift. For speaking in tongues to be Biblical, there has to be someone who can interpret what you’re saying. Otherwise you could simply be making noise, or you could be speaking something inspired by demons. Other churches will tell you that only certain translations of the Bible are acceptable. If the translation you are reading is an ACCURATE translation, and God speaks to you through it, then it’s acceptable. God doesn’t fit in a King James sized box.

Why is there a Nobel Peace Prize? Most experts say it was Nobel trying to make up for the dynamite and other explosives he created for peaceful purposes being used to cause death and destruction.

What about plastic bags? Intended to carry groceries, trash, and other such things. They have been used by criminals to smother people. Rope can bind the material that builds a shelter to save your life, or it can be used to hang you by the neck.

The point is that anything that is good can and probably will be corrupted, twisted, and distorted for other than honorable purposes.

---

http://www.americanvision.org/print/printpage.php

Why Liberals (Sometimes) Love the Bible

by Gary DeMar, Dec 21, 2009

Liberals will use anything to support their unsupportable worldview, even if it’s the Bible. They will use the Bible when they can manipulate it enough to fit their agenda. How many times have you had a liberal throw Matthew 7:1 back at you when you mention that some particular behavior is immoral? “Remember what Jesus said, ‘Do not judge.’” When you criticize a piece of unconstitutional legislation or a law that the president wants passed, you’ll have “render unto Caesar” (Matt. 22:21) thrown in your face.

Every Christmas season we will hear the inevitable revisionist version of the Christmas story in order to further government programs. Jesse Jackson was the first to turn Joseph and Mary into a “homeless couple” when he claimed that Christmas “is not about Santa Claus and ‘Jingle Bells’ and fruit cake and eggnog,” of which all Christians would agree, but about “a homeless couple.”[1] He repeated his “homeless couple” theme at the 1992 Democratic Convention:

We hear a lot of talk about family values, even as we spurn the homeless on the street. Remember, Jesus was born to a homeless couple, outdoors in a stable, in the winter. He was the child of a single mother. When Mary said Joseph was not the father, she was abused. If she had aborted the baby, she would have been called immoral. If she had the baby, she would have been called unfit, without family values. But Mary had family values. It was Herod—the [Dan] Quayle of his day—who put no value on the family.

Jackson made a similar claim about the biblical record in 1999 when he stated that Christmas “is not about parties, for they huddled alone in the cold stable. It isn’t about going into debt to buy extravagant presents; the greatest Gift was given to them although they had no money. It is about a homeless couple, finding their way in a mean time.”[2]

We can agree with Jackson that Christmas is not about Santa Clause and all the modern commercial trappings, but to turn the biblical account of the birth of Christ into a political hobby horse cannot supported by an actual study of the text of Scripture. Barbara Reynolds, a former columnist for USA Today, following Jackson’s early lead, scolded the Christian Right for opposing government welfare programs: “They should recall,” she writes, “that Jesus Christ was born homeless to a teen who was pregnant before she was married.”[3] Hillary Clinton, in comments critical of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s homeless policies, sought to remind all of us that “Christmas celebrates ‘the birth of a homeless child.’”[4] Rev. William Sterrett told The Providence (RI) Journal the true Christmas story is about the poor and needy. “We have a very clear picture about the whole thing,” Sterrett said. “But the truth is Mary and Joseph were homeless. She gave birth to Jesus in a barn. This image captures the essence of a Christmas story because you cannot get any poorer than that.” Pat Nichols, writing for The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, MA), concludes, “At the core, the story of Christmas is about a homeless couple about to have a baby. It is a story about poverty that most of us never experience, people with little more than they carry on their backs and a donkey to provide transportation.”[5] Have these people ever read the Bible?

• Mary did not engage in premarital sex. Her circumstances, to say the least, were unique (Luke 1:26-28). Many young girls got married as teenagers.
• Mary went to live with her cousin Elizabeth upon hearing about her pregnancy and “stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home” (Luke 1:56). Presumably her parents owned a home and did not throw her out when they learned of her pregnancy.
• Mary and Joseph were actually married at the time she learned she was pregnant even though a formal ceremony had not taken place. Joseph is called “her husband” (Matt. 1:19).
• Joseph was a self-employed carpenter (Matt. 13:55).
• An edict from the centralized Roman government forced Joseph and Mary to spend valuable resources of money and time to return to their place of birth to register for a tax (Luke 2:1-7). Joseph’s business was shut down while he took his very pregnant wife on a wild goose chase concocted by the Roman Empire to raise additional tax money.
• Typical of governments that make laws without considering the consequences, there was not enough housing for the great influx of traveling citizens and subjects who complied with the governmental decree (Luke 2:1).
• Mary and Joseph had enough money to pay for lodging. The problem was inadequate housing. The fact that “there was no room in the inn” (Luke 2:7) did not make them homeless. If we follow liberal logic, any family that takes a trip is by definition homeless and finds “no vacancy” signs, is technically homeless.
• Joseph and Mary owned or rented a home. It was in their home that the wise men offered their gifts: “And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother, and they fell down and worshipped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh” (Matt. 2:11).
• Joseph, Mary, and Jesus became a family on the run when Herod, a government official, became a threat to them (Matt. 2:13–15).

In 2006, Jesse Jackson got it right: “The story of Christmas is about a couple—Mary and Joseph—forced by an oppressive imperial government to leave their home to travel far to be counted in the census.”[6] I’m amazed how politicians and social critics are quick to quote and misquote the Bible when they believe it supports their quirky political views. When conservatives appeal to the Bible, we hear the inevitable “separation of church and state,” “you can’t impose your morality on other people,” “religion and politics don’t mix.” The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion. The Bible is also clear on the moral issue of poverty. Nowhere in the Bible is civil government given authority to help the poor by raising taxes on the rich to pay for wealth distribution schemes. In fact, as history shows, the “war on poverty” became the war on the poor.[7]

We would be more accurate to say, the Christmas story is about how taxes hurt the poor and government decrees can turn productive families into the disenfranchised by enacting and enforcing a counterproductive law.

Post Reply | View Replies

Endnotes:

[1] As reported in The Atlanta Journal/Constitution (December 28, 1991), A9.
[2] Jesse Jackson, “The Homeless Couple,” Los Angeles Times (December 22, 1999). The version of Jackson’s message “The Homeless Couple” can be found at http://www.rainbowpush.org/commentaries/1999/122299.html
[3] Barbara Reynolds, “These political Christians neither religious nor right,” USA Today (Nov. 18, 1994), 13A.
[4] Cited in “Washington” under Politics in USA Today (December 1, 1999), 15A.
[5] Pat Nichols, “It’s time to offer a helping hand,” The Berkshire Eagle (December, 12, 2004).
[6] Jesse Jackson, “Peace Is At the Heart of the Christmas Story,” Chicago Sun-Times (December 19, 2006). In a January 8, 2009 article, Jackson once again describes Joseph and Mary as a “homeless couple”: “The real story is about a homeless couple, immigrants ordered by the government to return home to be counted.”
[7] Thomas Sowell, “‘War on Poverty’ has left nation in poorer condition,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (August 18, 2004), A13.

+

---

Obama Plus Congress Equals Economic Chaos

How long will it take the average American to wake up to the realities of False Prophet Obama? Only the Shaddow knows.

by Chuck Norris (more by this author)
Posted 03/03/2009 ET
Updated 03/03/2009 ET

Ronald Reagan was right when he said: “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

The next stage of out-of-control government spending started when George W. Bush bailed out Wall Street with $700 billion (new debt No. 1). But Congress didn’t learn from that failure, and apparently, neither did Barack Obama. So the newly elected president pushed for the next stimulus bill (debt No. 2), this one for $787 billion.

But that wasn’t enough, either, so the recent $410 billion omnibus spending bill (with 9,000 earmarks — 60 percent originating with Democrats and 40 percent with Republicans) is being railroaded through Congress to keep government moving until September (debt No. 3).

And then Obama informed us last week that another $634 billion is required for a down payment on universal health care. Before there’s a plan, there’s already a payment (debt No. 4).

If that isn’t enough, Obama is asking for a roughly $3.6 trillion budget for 2010 despite the fact that the White House projects a 2009 budget shortfall of $1.5 trillion — triple the $455 billion in 2008. (That’s debt No. 5.)

And all of that doesn’t include other stimuli on the horizon, as Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, noted when he called the mammoth $787 billion spending bill “stimulus No. 1.” (That’s debt No. 6, debt No. 7, debt No. 8, etc.)

All of these wild expenditures would be a little more bearable if we saw any signs of economic recovery. But how has all this alleged stimulus stabilized and grown the economy and the market? As our government has bailed out, the Dow Jones industrial average has dropped. It’s dropped about 2,000 points since Obama took office, roughly 200 points after every major speech he has made.

So the big question is: How has Obama gotten away with racking up more expenses in his first 30 days in office than all the presidents combined since the founding of our republic did in theirs?

Bernard Goldberg’s A Slobbering Love Affair is a great book about the media’s blind bias and infatuation with Obama, but Obama’s hypnotic effects permeate every stratum of society, from political corridors to public schools. Why? Because he’s young, hip, cool, liberal and charismatic — and that’s what sells today in America. Objectiveness and criticism fly right out the window with the mere mention of his name or any discussion of his excessive spending plans.

On “Good Morning America” last Thursday, two of ABC’s financial experts graded Obama’s excessive borrowing and fiscal performance a B, while guest financial expert Dave Ramsey rated it an F. Despite the two B grades, one of ABC’s financial experts quipped that one of the biggest problems with Obama’s bailouts is that there is no real form of government accountability over the money pouring out of Washington. Yet she maintained her B grade for Obama’s stewardship plan. Why?

Here’s an even better example: As Obama addressed Congress last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the way in spontaneous emotive applause for her political hero. Pop-up Pelosi was bouncing up and down like Tigger on steroids, forcing Vice President Joe Biden to rise slowly every time she jumped up, and Biden had to try to hide his frustration with her. Pelosi’s eyes and facial expressions seemed almost giddy as she gazed at Obama like a teenager infatuated with the popular high-school jock.

As I watched this obsessive congressional circus, I asked myself, “Is this the type of objective bipartisan leadership we want running our government, leading our nation, and spending our money?”

The political and financial math is easy to calculate. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out — just an honest assessment of Washington’s present landscape. Here’s how the equation pans out:

America’s political love affair with President Obama plus the Democratic majority’s coercions in Congress equals trillions of dollars in new debt for Americans, or more economic chaos.

If we ever are to restore the fiscal and leadership sanity to our economy and government, we need not to reinvent the Great Depression wheel of Roosevelt’s New Deal. We need to look to a time when Congress was more frugal in its spending and stabilized our government and economy. And in the past 100 years, one of the best examples of that occurred when Newt Gingrich led Congress in the 1990s. I’m not justifying every financial move they made back then, but despite losing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by only one Senate vote, they still committed to spending caps and balancing the budget, which they did for four consecutive years. That was the first time that had happened since the 1920s.

The Congress of the ’90s steadied and strengthened the economy by following four priorities and principles, which are being turned on their heads at this moment by the present administration. As Newt noted in his excellent book Real Change, Congress’ top priorities were to:

* Cut taxes to increase economic growth and therefore increase revenues (unlike Obama’s tax hikes, which will retard economic growth and depress revenues).

* Set priorities and increase spending in key areas while reducing it in nonessential areas (unlike Obama’s fiscal priorities of health care, energy and education, which are based not upon what is best for the economy but what is reflective of typical partisan preferences and doing what is politically expedient).

* Eliminate pork-barrel spending (unlike the 9,000 earmarks in the present $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which is nothing short of absolute economic ludicrousness, mismanagement and waste within our present crisis).

* Shift from expensive, wasteful systems to smarter spending; look at not only more inexpensive ways but also more productive ones (unlike Obama’s theory to spend our way to prosperity, which is a sure way to sink America).

Our government is hemorrhaging money. The nanny state is becoming the norm. Our Founders are rolling in their graves. And at this very moment, Washington’s credit-crazy and debt-accumulating addiction is dissolving our sovereignty like a sugar cube in coffee by handing our financial autonomy over to other nations. In other words, Rome is burning, and Caesar is stoking the fire!

Time is running out, but it’s not too late to reverse Washington’s fiscal frenzy. Don’t just write to your representatives; hound them to live and legislate by the preceding four proven priorities and principles of governmental and monetary prudence.