|
|
They Prefer Caviar, Even If It Comes
With Chains by Chuck Baldwin, October 18, 2012
They Prefer Caviar, Even If It Comes With Chains
By Chuck Baldwin
October 18, 2012
Archived column:
There is an Old Testament story that parallels with what is
going on in America today. The story is found in Numbers chapter 11. God
had delivered His people from great bondage. They witnessed His mighty hand
of power and deliverance in defeating their oppressors and leading them
toward a land of promise and liberty. He even dropped “angels’ food”
(called manna) from Heaven to sustain them. But after being delivered from
bondage, they began to yearn for a return to Egypt. In verse 5 of that
chapter, the people are recorded as complaining, “We remember the fish,
which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the
leeks, and the onions, and the garlick.” (KJV)
Can you believe it? After hundreds of years of floggings,
imprisonments, beatings, chains, and slavery, they remember FISH? I don’t
know if caviar was considered a delicacy back in those days. If it wasn’t,
I suppose it’s possible that slaves ate fish eggs also. But can you believe
it? After being delivered from the worst possible slavery, all they
remembered was the fish? Holy Creepers, Batman!
Now, to understand what’s going on here, we have to read
verse 4, “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and
the children of Israel also.”
I have heard countless sermons on this passage, and in all
honesty I cannot remember one that identified what they were lusting after.
Lust here means “to covet greatly.” So, what were they coveting? Was it
food? Was it the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic? No!
What they coveted, what they lusted after, was SECURITY!
In the wilderness, there was risk, uncertainty, and
potential failure. They had to depend totally on divine Providence. They
could not see what the morrow would hold. There were no guarantees, no
entitlements, and no assurances. And even though God had delivered them
with great power, sustained them daily with manna, and promised them a land
of freedom of their very own, they lusted after security. To them, security
was more important than liberty.
If this story does not parallel with what is happening in
America right now, nothing does! God delivered the American people out of
great bondage. He proved His power and might on our behalf. He gave us a
land of liberty of our very own. And now all Americans seem to be able to
think about are the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of
bondage. They lust for, and greatly covet, SECURITY.
It seems that there is no usurpation of liberty so egregious
that the American people, both churched and un-churched, will not gladly
accept, as long as it is presented to them as a way to make them feel more
secure. In truth, so many Americans--especially so many of those who call
themselves Christians--are practicing idolaters. They are worshipping at
the altar of safety and security. Big Government politicians and
bureaucrats are the priests, the Department of Homeland Security is the
temple, and the taxes, fees, and assessments are the tithes and offerings.
Hallelujah!
Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, "They who can
give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
And that is exactly what happened to the Israelites in the
wilderness. In their lust after the security of Egypt (even if it meant
bondage), they so angered the Lord that He allowed them to die in the
wilderness with neither liberty nor the safety that they coveted. And if
America continues on its current course, this is exactly what will happen
to us.
Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney has done or said
anything that would indicate either man has any intention of dismantling
the ubiquitous surveillance society/police state that is engulfing our
country. Just the opposite. Both men have committed themselves to the
tyrannical provisions of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the
NDAA, etc. Neither man has any intention of dismantling the Warfare
State that is leading the United States smack dab into the middle of World
War III. In fact, I predict that if Romney is elected (which I think he
will be), he will escalate America’s policies of military interventionism
to heights never before seen. He will make G.W. Bush’s preemptive war
incursions look like child’s play. (And I think the globalists know this
and fully intend to put Romney in power for this very purpose.)
Noted researcher and analyst Joel Skousen quotes Daniel
Indiviglio, Reuter’s Breakingviews columnist, as saying that Mitt Romney’s
future wars will be a budget buster: “Mitt Romney’s foreign policy doesn’t
match his thrifty approach to other spending. The U.S. Republican presidential
candidate’s speech on Monday suggests a George W. Bush-like interventionist
streak, another step away from the party’s pre-World War Two isolationism.
That could lead to more Middle East conflict and defense spending. It’s
also just as risky as President Barack Obama’s stance.”
In my opinion, Indiviglio greatly understates the problem.
These modern-day Republican warmongers, including Mitt Romney, seem to have
an insatiable appetite for war. In truth, if Barack Obama loses this
election, he will have no one to blame but himself. If he had followed
through with his commitment to end America’s military adventurism in the
Middle East, he would have won in a landslide. By him choosing to not only
continue, but expand, Bush’s wars in the Middle East, he put the nails in
his own political coffin. The problem is, Romney will double or triple
America’s Warfare State.
And don’t let anyone fool you! Ron Paul was right about
“blowback.” Except for a very small minority of militant Muslim extremists,
the vast majority of people in the Middle East do not hate the United
States because of our freedom; they hate us for the way we have long
intruded into the private affairs of their countries, and they hate us for
the way we have rained down death and destruction at will upon their
fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters.
Skousen writes, “Now we have strong evidence from direct
interviews with a wide variety of victims that neither of the US
government’s claims [of the lack of innocent people being killed by America’s
drone attacks] are true. Leon Watson, of the UK Daily Mail, summarizes some
of the findings: ‘Just one in 50 victims of America’s deadly drone strikes
in Pakistan are terrorists --while the rest are innocent civilians, a new
report claimed today. The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New
York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being
terrorized by the operations “24 hours-a day”.
“‘And the authors lay much of the blame on the use of the
“double-tap” strike where a drone fires one missile--and then a second as
rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble. One aid agency said they had
a six-hour delay before going to the scene.’
“Hitting the relief effort can only result in more innocents
killed. Everyone in the intelligence community knows that after a strike on
suspected militants, all his comrades flee for their lives and try to get
farther away. Only innocent relatives and relief works are present during
the follow up strikes--which can only be meant to create terror.”
Come on, folks, think! How would we react if Russia or China
were raining down missiles on our homes and families day after day after
day? And bombing emergency workers’ relief efforts and funerals? Would not
any person of decency and civility deem such practices among the most
reprehensible that could ever be imagined? I mean, this is right out of
1920’s gangland atrocities. Is Al Capone in charge of our foreign policy,
or what?
And Skousen (himself a Mormon), after excoriating Obama,
says this about Mitt Romney: “But that isn’t to say Romney would save us
from much of the Obama agenda. He’s already sending messages that he would
retain most of Obamacare even if repealed. Romney’s problem is that he has
too much ambition and is trying desperately to please the establishment. He
has hired virtually all establishment and neocon advisors. I hope he
loses--not because I want Obama back, but because the conservative movement
suffers under Republican presidents who do the establishment bidding while
convincing conservatives it’s the ‘right thing to do.’ It’s not.”
And all of this is being sold to the American public under
the rubric of SECURITY. Our aggressive warmongering is believed to make us
more secure (in reality, it makes us less secure). But security--even false
security--is what the American people seem to covet. Plus, in so doing,
they seem eager to put the fetters around their own necks here at home by
being willing to accept a Soviet-style surveillance/police state. Just like
the Israelites of old: many Americans prefer caviar, even if it comes with
chains!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me
distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations
may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
And follow my updates by liking the following Facebook
pages:
Also, follow me on Twitter:
And please visit my web site for past columns and much more
at:
© Chuck Baldwin
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment