Peace

[re-formatted for easier reading, Dec/17/2013]
Post 194

As I spend more time now compiling my manuscript and filling in the blanks for my first (and second) book, I am taking a bit of a break from the intense study…. but the next book just won’t stop as time does not seem to have a pause button.

Watching the speech yesterday by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu (Net-and-Yahoo) before the U.S. House Joint Meeting of Congress, I was delighted by two things: The packed house, And the warm welcome and favorable response shown to him:

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blesses.” Genesis 12:3

Yet equal to my delight was the noteworthy spirit and focus of Mr. Netanyahu’s entire speech, easily described by the single word: Peace.
I will not here go into the plethora of validations found in the speech as the entire existence of that tiny nation since its birth has been an example of this desire. The Jews desperately want peace; pure and simple peace….
But in today’s world, nothing is pure and simple.

Islam also wants peace: They have been declaring that for years, They call their religion; “The Religion of Peace.”
So where is the persistent problem that seems to deny two neighbors with mutual desire, from finding mutual peace between them?
I will show that the problem is entirely and completely found in the God of the ideologies (*1), and then I will show with that understanding, the reason why the call for global Democracy is the destruction of Israel:
* * *

Boxes:
Like the secular scientist who, intentionally exclusive of religion, spends his entire career exploring the limitless possible explanations for the existence of the universe without a Creator God, the intellectual mind of modern secular man diligently attempts to find world peace intentionally excluding the Creator of peace. This approach lies fully at the feet of the philosophy (*2) that separates God and Reality.
By accepting, even subconsciously, the categorizing of these values, we create a wall that refuses the one to interact with the other: Reality in this box, and religion in that box, each given great respect… as long as it stays in its box.

The limitless variations that then spring up, offering their theories of answer, begin a desperate need for an ever growing number of investigators to explore each possible answer to finding peace:
Do we give up land to acquire peace?
Do we enter a trade agreement for peace?
Can peace be found by a costly unbalance of the above?
Do we dissolve our protective armies for peace?
Or our arms that might threaten those who now hate us?
Should I wear a blue suit to the summit, or a green one?

These are the beginning theories that instead of providing an answer simply provide more theories that need more researchers in the quest to find peace.
Like Charles Darwin’s theory described in his book “On The Origin of Species” (1876), the limitless possibilities that propagate like Cain Toads never seem to address the actual title question: The Origin.

Therefore, Stripping away all the extraneous theories to avoid unending failed trials, it is vital to first explore the origin: "Where does peace come from?" "What makes peace?"
First, to make sure we are all starting on the same page, let's simply define an agreeable meaning of the word:

“Peace: 1. A pact or agreement to end hostilities. 2. A state of tranquility or quiet; especially: a. Freedom from civil disturbance or war. b. Public order or security, as provided by law; as, a breach of the peace. 3. Harmony in personal relations; mutual concord. 4. Freedom from fears, agitating passions, moral conflict, etc. 5. One who or that which makes or maintains peace.”
* * *

Where does peace come from?
Using caution not to immediately fall back into the secondary theories of How to acquire peace, we can understand that the state of peace is a result of mutually agreed perspectives. Mutual perspectives can only be sourced in the compatibility of respective primary ideologies (*1), (Honestly I am not trying to sound all sophisticated here, but such important matters require very accurate words.)
Let's use an example concept we are all familiar with:
Evolution:
The Evolutionist approaches all his life-perspectives (ideologies) from the foundation that there is no creative being to which we are all accountable.
The Christian/Godly Jew approaches all his life-perspectives (ideologies) from the foundation that there is.
Each individual or society can happily live out his/its life under its ideology, as long as they do not cross paths with the opposing ideology. But upon interaction, their respective ideologies engender foundational conduct that is incompatible. Hence; Lack of peace.
As it is in the nature of God's people to seek peace, he will often rightly sacrifice his preferences in the attempt to find ground that can be surrendered in the effort to make an agreement (peace). But when that is not enough, in error he will compromise his ideology for the sake of peace. This is the root of error that causes the ungrounded child of God to determine that God used Evolution to create the universe, and without knowing it, the faithful has changed his ideology to agree with the Evolutionist and thereby found peace. Problem solved!
But a new conflict is born between the ideology of the recently converted “Child of God”, and the ideology of the Creator which he abandon. So we see the conflict was not actually solved, only shifted to a far more authoritative opponent.

By this example of successful compromise between parties, we see that peace though quite real at the time, has nothing to do with the reality of the ideology agreed upon. Peace in this case is nothing more than mutual agreement resulting in a lack of contention, while the foundational truth of the origin of everything is still left unanswered.
Such is the Islamic perspective of peace.
To them, peace cannot be found until all humanity agrees with their ideology. So in an earnest desire to find peace, they follow the commands of their authority (Allah) and remove all those who disagree. This is why there is no conflict of values when they honestly desire peace at the same time they exterminate entire nations. It is one in the same; the acquisition of peace through force or elimination.
This ideology lives contentedly undisturbed by the ideology of the Jews and Christians which hold that peace can be found by the value allowing each neighbor to maintain his own ideologies. And as long as the two remain isolated there is no conflict and therefore the illusion of peace is had. But by definition there is no peace because there is no mutual agreement. While this may be enough for the Child of God, The Child of Allah is unsatisfied.
We see then that while peace is honestly desired from both sides, it is only offered by the one, while extermination is offered by the other. Therefore, we must explore the foundations of the ideologies to determine the source of peace.
* * *

God of Peace:
The scriptures are full of complex examples showing that Jehovah God is the God of Peace; such as Genesis 41:16 showing that God offers peace even to those not of his people or his way. It is also shown in Genesis 44:17 describing the fair administration of justice not punishing blanketly, or Exodus 18:23 describing the intricacies of many men collectively administering law under God resulting in peace, or Numbers 10:10 and Deuteronomy 27:7 explaining that God has made provision whereby we may acquire peace with him even after offense, and even I Chronicles 12:17 and Romans 12:19 that declares God himself will reward or punish the motive of peace or betrayal behind the actions of our neighbors toward us because it's not our job, and finally by Psalm 85:8 laying the principle that there are correct internal requirements that must be followed by His own people before God will speak peace to them. Peace is important to God, the God of Peace.
Add to that complex (and incomplete) list, the simple declarations that our God is the God of Peace:

“For unto us a child is born (Jesus), unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” Isaiah 9:6,

or the blessing upon the man that declares peace, with a description of that peace; “good tidings of good…” Isaiah 52:7, or God’s angels declaring the mind of God at the birth of his Messiah offered to all mankind; “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” Luke 2:14, or the many inculcations of the ministering Apostles to the people of God declaring peace upon them through the conduct of following the Spirit of Jesus; (Romans 1:7,5:1,14:17,15:13,16:20,I Corinthians 1:3,7:15,14:33,II Corinthians 13:11,Galatians 6:16 etc. etc.)
What is the Spirit of Jesus regarding interaction with your neighbors? Listen to Jesus' own words:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father (God) which is in heaven:…” Matthew 5:43-45a

The large percent of the scriptures deals with instructions on how to live in peace with all those who disagree with you… as far as they will allow;

“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” Romans 12:18-19.

There is no god of peace like the God of Peace! But that does not mean that God is a pansy pushover. He watches, and he pays attention. And when eventually there is no hope for the wicked to recognize his error and turn from his wickedness, then his iniquity is full and God will dispense Judgment (Genesis 15:16, Ezekiel 9:9-10). Until then, God extends extreme mercy for their sake, and we are directed to do the same.
Is this the heart of Allah we see reflected in his followers? Murdering themselves if it might mean killing someone they don’t know, and who has done them no wrong? Is this the peace Allah offers when he instructs his followers to “kill the disbelievers wherever you find them”? Qur’an 2:191 (also Qur’an 9:124, 5:34 etc.)
* * *

No Peace:
But peace is not an ideology. Peace is a byproduct of an ideology… No; peace is a byproduct of agreement, and therefore can only be found where two differing ideologies can agree. If one ideology respects the other, peace has the chance of being found through negotiations; adjusting preferences until mutual ground can be found. But if the other cannot reciprocate the respect, peace cannot be found as there is no ground agreeable. There is an ideology that lends to peace, and one that does not:

“But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” Isaiah 57:20-21

The reason this is so, is not because God makes sure of it, but because it is the nature of wickedness:
One God of Peace, One god of War; The followers are simply the pawns of their respective ideologies.
* * *

Democracy vs. Republic:
Now that we understand where peace comes from, and the means by which to acquire it, let's examine the theory that peace can be found through democracy. To do so, let's start by agreeing on what democracy is.

Democracy: […from Greek demokratia, from demos the people + kratein to rule, kratos authority.] 1. Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (absolute, or pure, democracy), or indirectly (representative democracy) through a system of representation. 2. A community or state so governed. 3. U.S. The principles and policy of the Democratic party; also, that party, or its members. 4. Belief in or practice of social equality; absence of snobbery.

In the attempt to avoid diversions from the topic, we still must at least address in passing, that since 1963-64 America and the world had begun a new confusion; understanding that the United States of America is a democracy which it is not. (See U.S. Constitution Article 4 Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a Republican Form of Government…”).
Do we not have a representative government of the people who have retained that power to rule? Yes we do.
Is that not a democracy? No it is not.
How can I say that? By the simple word in the definition: supreme.

Explain:
The dictionary definition above identifies the supreme power in such a government, is the people governed. In such a government, it is the fickle hearts and the fickle minds of the fickle people who determine their own laws. If one year they want this, they vote such representatives that will make laws giving them this. And in the next year if they change their minds and want that, they vote such representatives that will make laws to give them that.
What a wonderful system! What could possibly be wrong with that?

There are two foundational problems that guarantee such government to soon fail.
First: Such administration is run by the majority; that is 51% of the people telling 49% how they will live. This is not freedom for the 49%. Such a nation cannot rightly claim to be free, but only the illusion of freedom.
Second: Retaining supreme power to themselves, the people are then un-responsible to any higher authority. Therefore they are able to pass any law that fills their every desire. By the very nature of mankind; “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. In this unavoidable way, the 51% will burden the 49% with the demand to support their indulgences, and their indulgences will be limitless as they learn how to manipulate the system to their wicked desires unstoppable by any means but violence.

This is not the system of government that our founding fathers created and passed on to the following generations. Our founders diligently labored to make sure this was NOT what they created. (*3)

So what did they create?
Our founders labored long and hard to create for us a Republic.

Republic: [from Latin respublica commonwealth, from res thing, affair + publicus, publica, public.] A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them; also, the form of government of such a state.

Curious. This 1948 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary tells us there is virtually no real difference between a (representative) Democracy and a Republic. In both cases the sovereign/supreme governed elect their rulers thereby maintaining the power to provide for themselves what they want. Yet continuing in the dictionary to define; "Republican", "Republicanism", "Republicanize" and "Republican Party", I see there is clearly more to a Republic than this dictionary lets on, but we are not provided enough information. How then do we find what a republic actually is that makes it different from a Democracy?

Fortunately I have a very tired 1881 Noah Webster Dictionary that I break out on such occasions. But curious again; this dictionary definition is nearly identical.... with the inclusion of one extra line: “Common interest.”
And the curiosity grows when I discover a vast difference in the word; “Republicanize: To convert to Republican principles; as, to republicanize the rising generation.”

Next I again see a significant aid in the unique word; “Republican: [adjective] 1. Pertaining to a Republic. The Roman emperors were republican magistrates named by the senate. 2. Consonant with the principles of a republic; as, republican sentiments or opinions; republican manners.” (underline emphasas added)

Clearly there is still much NOT said but implied. It appears that what makes a Republic different from a Democracy, is a core value on which the people stand. This at first seems like a very small difference. But let's think about it.
* * *

Federalist Papers:
When the struggling nation of America was deciding on their new form of Government, the Constitution was one option. It had significant opposition as many thought it was too controlling. So Alexander Hamilton, in a desire to win over his home state of New York, started a series of essays explaining and defending the Constitution, which Madison and Jay then also contributed to the effort. The result was the Federalist Papers (*4). In these essays we find bits and pieces in our quest to understand the real meaning of a Republic as they intended to give it to us.

Federalist Paper No. 23: “The Necessity Of A Government As Energetic As The One Proposed To The Preservation Of The Union.”
This essay by its title, defends the proposed Constitutional form of government as the best means of preserving the collection of states they called the Union (a joining together of several for a singular cause, that we now call the Unites States for the same reason). In the second paragraph we find three purposes intended for such a government they identify as the Federal; i.e. Federation of States under a singular government:
1st: The objects (things) to be provided for by a federal government.
2nd: The quantity (amount or degree) of power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects (things).
3rd: The persons upon whom that power ought to operate (who should fall under that authority).
(numbering system added for clarification)

Simply put: What is to be accomplished? How much power is needed to get it done? And who falls under the jurisdiction of what is determined?
Under these three questions are the scope of intent for the creation of a Federal Government to manage the Unification of the several States of America.

Then in the next paragraph Mr. Hamilton goes further and addresses the intended results to be expected by such a Constitution:
“The principle purposes to be answered by union are these -
1st the common defense of the members;
2nd the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks;
3rd the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States;
4th the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.” (numbering system added for clarification)

In short, the main reasons we should unify all our States into one federal government are these:
1st: The collective defense of all the individual States, 2nd: The endurance and stability of public peace, including national and state conflicts as well as conflicts with other nations, 3rd: the orderly and systematic operation of business between the States and other nations, 4th: the over-sight of interaction, both political and commercial, between our nation and other nations.

So finally we get to the answer of the question; "What is a Republic?"
AND we also get a bonus by the discovery that public peace is a primary goal of the said Republic.
* * *

The Difference:
So while a Democracy is nothing less than Mob Rule of the majority half of the people ruling over the other half, a republic indeed has a stated purpose and universally accepted guidelines that supersede the fickle wishes of the majority. In otherwords a Republic is equality for all the people not just the majority.

With this comprehension we then understand the example used in the 1881 Noah Webster Dictionary for the word; “Republicanize: To convert to Republican principles; as, to republicanize the rising generation.”
We now easily understand that the rising generation needs to be persuaded to accept the values that were accepted by those who collectively established the particular Republic. We must Republicanize this present generation if the Republic is to endure! But until now, neither you nor I even knew what made a Republic, let alone convince others that a Republic is important.
* * *

Our Particular Republic:
The people of the States were successfully persuaded, and they did by consensus establish the Federal Government under the specific constraints of the United States Constitution, thus creating a Republican Union of States.
Did it work?
There were indeed very significant “internal convulsions (as well as) external attacks”, but just as planned, the Federal form of government under the specific authority of the Constitution, was eventually able to emerge victorious over the conflicts thereby succeeding in “the preservation of the public peace.”

Today:
We are now facing yet another of many significant attacks aimed at the very foundation of our Republic: the Constitution that defines and controls the power of the Federation of States.
When the elected members of Congress, or even the President himself, choose to ignore or openly spurn the controlling document, even if at the will of the majority; Then the Republic is in danger of disintegration as sure as the original proposed Constitution was in danger of being rejected and the Republic never born. Congress is not elected to alter the foundational values that make the Republic, we are all in agreement that our desires must remain secondary to the Republic. THAT's what makes it a Republic! Congress is voted to manage the practical means by which we choose to dwell under that Republic. Mr. Bill Gothard of IBLP describes the character of Obedience as; "Freedom to be creative under Divinely appointed authority." This is the job of Congress under the Constitution. Anything else is subversive at best and should be dealt with harshly.

This generation is so completely ignorant of our form of government and its intended purposes, that through utter ignorance we assume that America is nothing more than a successful Democracy. And while this is extremely dangerous to our mature Federation of States as is now confirmed by our eminent destruction, it is also a grave mass abortion of new nations conceived, which desire to follow the success of our imagined example of Democracy.

Such a late-term euthanization is the newborn but barely viable nation of Israel, and now Egypt.
While they struggle to survive the birth, they cling mightily to the Democracy which America has offered them, but there has never been a successful Democracy in the history of the world and we offer them what has not been our success. America is NOT a democracy though she is trying to conduct herself like one now! (*6)
* * *

Israel’s Democracy:
In his speech yesterday, Mr. Netanyahu said:
“We stand together to defend Democracy, we stand together to advance peace…you don’t need to export Democracy to Israel, we already have it.”

On that foundation he then shifts to discuss the evil now forcing itself on the world, and the plan to combat it:
“…for an epic battle is now under way in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass (*7) to the Straight of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states, they’ve toppled governments, and we can all see that the ground is still shifting.”

And then he continued determined to stand on the strength of universal democracy as his intended help of defense against that tyrant, declaring:
“Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity.” And so he went on to promote the idea of democracy as glorious and sure and wise.

Then as if on Que, he was given the very timely evidence of those glories as a woman heckler burst out. To which he stated:
“You know I take it as a badge of honor, and so should you, that in OUR free societies you can have protest. You can’t have these protests in the Farcical (modern Persia) parliaments of Tehran (Iran), or in Tripoli (Lebanon). THIS IS REAL DEMOCRACY.”
* * *


What kind of Republic?
This is a question I have spent several early Blogs discussing and would be worthy of review in “Book One - As America falls,” (Posts 001-083). But in short, we have a democratically (representationally) managed Republic; an impossible thing without the individual morality of a “personal republic” of following the accepted “rules” of Christ. This is the mystery of America’s greatness that has now been utterly lost to history. And in the same way as America now goes politically, the Modern Christian also administers his personal Republic (Faith) as a democracy of his 51% power of possession (of his body) to make a slave of Christ’s 49% influence. Such a faith cannot succeed, just as such a nation.

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” Matthew 12:25

America was not simply a Republic with only man’s ideas established to govern it. She was the first and only nation to derive those Republican ideas from the concepts of the Messiah himself:

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!" — Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia)

China has a Republic, or like America; what remains of a republic. And for many years I could not understand how both China and America could claim to be of the same form. Now with this new understanding it is clear: Both republics are established upon different values; One is God-less, the other of God.
* * *

Now that both China and America have long forgotten what a Republic is, let alone even tried to Republicanize the next generation, the world has turned a collective eye to Democracy for the answer to the Tyrant of Islam. Today America is not simply one step away from a Republic, but now two steps away from a Godly Republic, and has no idea where we came from. And now you and I can comprehend how Republicans can very emotionally defend their Republican values against the attacks of Democracy, yet have no distinguishing difference when they are in the majority seat of power. Republicans have no idea what a Republic is!

True Story:
Discussing the Netanyahu speech over coffee this morning, It was one of those rare occasions when everyone seemed to be on the “same page.” Even the waitress, perhaps from a lack of customers, was listening intently and nodding her head is agreement.
Quite a while into the discussion it occurred to me by experience that she might not actually know who Netanyahu is, so I conveniently slipped into a sentence that Netanyahu was like a president to Israel. Her eyes dawned in understanding and she laughed out loud, saying something to the effect; “I was wondering how the Net and Yahoo had so much power to address Congress.”

My point here is not to embarrass her, but to show that people are prone to agree with people they choose to trust, regardless if they understand anything of what they hear. So an hour into a good conversation of logic and reason and ideas, we think we are making progress in peaceful agreement when suddenly we realize that we are not even on the same planet let alone the same page!

When Israel and Islam speak together of peace, the ideology is what puts them on different planets. There can be no peace between the gods of the ideologies even if the words are the same and both heads nod in agreement, just as you cannot have both light and dark in the same place. This is not a matter of negotiation skills, or acreage of land possessed or surrendered. But what real options does Israel have? Until now, she has had the power of America.
* * *

Two Stations:
Have you ever wondered how two gas stations end up right across the street from each other? “Chevron” on this side and “Union 76” on the other. Each franchise owner stands menacing in his door metaphorically throwing rocks at the other; there is a competition to bring in as many customers as possible, and those you can steal from “the other guy” is only that much more cause for rejoicing.
As a kid I remember my dad laughing as he explained that “both stations are owned by the same oil company”; It simply didn’t matter which station you chose, the money all went to “the man.” How true that is is not the discussion, but the principle is:
While one nation chooses the tyrant of Islam, the other chooses Democracy. And while the two nations, having picked stations, lob rock(-ets) at each other, the Devil laughs because both are owned by him.
When the whole world succeeds at global democracy, Israel will be in the 49% group laboring as slaves to support the 51... but the numbers won't be nearly that even, placing even more burden on the few to support the more.
* * *

The Third Option:
A nation collectively bound to the calling that; God is supreme, is the nation that stands as an unmovable wall against the storms of tormented neighbors.
God has long looked for such a people willing to hear that call because he can use that nation to show the world that God is not constrained to the box of religion. America heard the call and responded, and God used this nation to bless the earth with wisdom and bounty and peace.
Now as the age of grace is coming to an end, it is God’s desire that Israel respond to the call again. Israel is God’s bride, she has paid for her adulteries against him. After a long separation he called her home, but her heart has not returned to him. And in spite of the miracle of her new birth, and in spite of the miracle of her six day war, and in spite of her miracle of existing under the determination of the entire Middle East to destroy her, She turns to the gods of democracy for protection from Islam?!
As the traveler choosing the Chevron station because he detests Union 76, the Devil owns them both, and she is about to commit adultery again... and God has about had enough!

[For a continuation please see Post 253 "Who is the beast?" (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/07/who-is-beast.html)].
* * * * * * *

(*1) ideology: 1. Philos. The science of ideas; specifically a theory of the origin of ideas which derives them exclusively from sensation. 2. Visionary theorizing. 3. Manner or content of thinking characteristic of an individual or class; as, bourgeois ideology. -...

Note: I trust my regular inclusion of dictionary and original word definitions does not offend you as if I think you are ignorant. I include them here only because words have significant differences in meaning, not by definition but by use and comprehension. I do not argue if my meaning is correct or yours is, I simply include my intended meaning when I use the word so that you can clearly understand my actual thought for your own evaluation of its correctness rather than a comprehension due to a word that might mean different things to each of us.

(*2) philosophy: …[Greek philosophie, literally the love of wisdom] 1. Literally, the love of wisdom, in actual usage, the science which investigates the facts and principles of reality and of human nature and conduct; specifically and now usually, the science which comprises logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and the theory of knowledge. 2. A body of philosophical principles; especially the body of principles underlying a given branch of learning, or major discipline, a religious system, a human activity, or the like; as, the philosophy of history, Christianity, or of business. 3. Practical or moral wisdom; ethics… -

(*3) Not a Democracy!
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, A lady asked Dr. Franklin; "Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" “A republic" replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it.” -
McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain. (http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html)

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Democracy... while it lasts, is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” - John Adams

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” - Thomas Jefferson

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” - Thomas Jefferson

(*4) Discovery:
Imagine my surprise to discover that my Blog, by modern but similar ways, is my own effort to do the same thing as Alexander Hamilton; promoting the Republic of America and the Faith of Christianity by defending the Constitution and the Holy Scriptures respectively. The significant difference from the Federalist Papers is while they were promoting a new and untested concept, I am promoting one that has proven its worth, but now lies abandon. It is my earnest prayer that by understanding the sure and destructive course we are now on, that we might choose with diligence an altered path. To intentionally chart a new course back to the Godly Republic we have left behind.

(*6) Additional information:
See Post 056 “ American Form of Government" (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/03/american-form-of-government.html).

(*7) The Khyber Pass: (altitude: 1,070 m or 3,510 ft) is a mountain pass linking Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Pass was an integral part of the ancient Silk Road and throughout history, it has been an important trade route between Central Asia and South Asia and a strategic military location. The summit of the Khyber Pass is 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) inside Pakistan at Landi Kotal and it cuts through the northeastern part of the Safed Koh mountains which themselves are a far southeastern extension of the Hindu Kush range. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass)
The Strait of Gibraltar: is a narrow strait that connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea and separates Spain in Europe from Morocco in Africa.

(*) My reply to the question left by Anonymous:
Matthew 10:34 reads; "Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
While this may at first sound militant, we see by his careful wording that he didn't bring the sword with him when he came; he came to send a sword. So how does one come to send a sword? By the entire concept of scripture, we know that Jesus knew when he came to bring salvation to those who would receive him, it would result in the hatred by those who would not.

“My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war” Psalm 120:6-7.

“And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love” Psalm 109:5.

When God gave that tiny bit of land to the Hebrews, he knew it would result in the unreasonable anger of the rest of the world, who for some unexplainable reason cannot abide until those people are destroyed and that morsel is theirs too. Likewise this is what it means when Jesus came not to send peace but a sword, while he commands his people to labor for peace: Jesus brought peace with him when he came, but his coming sent a sword through the earth by those who would resist him and his, even by the hand of ones own family who stands against our Lord (Matthew 10:35-39). In the above verse of discussion Jesus simply told his people to expect it, rather than suppose the world would accept his offer of peace.

“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” John 16:33.

As Billy Graham said in his recent presentation at 95-years of age: “The Cross is offensive because it directly confronts the evils which dominate this world” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bba2Dqaw6SI).
Please see Post 307 Ninety Degrees and Homing Pigeons (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2013/11/ninety-degrees-and-homing-pigeons.html).

For a more thorough explanation please see Post 195 "Peace Part 2" (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/06/peace-part-2.html).
*