Ben Gilmore

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

April 14, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

PAG Post-Graduate Reminder

All those who have completed the “Principles of American Government” online course are welcome to attend these monthly discussions. To participate you must call me to be added to the call list.

We will meet next Sunday at 1330H. I will initiate the video call on Skype.

The discussion will begin with the comments on the following article:

Religious Liberty and the Compelling State Interest Test

by Neil Markva

(This is an email that was sent by Neil December 20, 1999 to U.D. Roberts and others)

There are two types of lawyers today—Constitutional lawyers and Supreme Court

opinion lawyers. The former hold that the Court has no authority to make law, so that a

Supreme Court opinion is merely an opinion of men that binds only the parties to the

particular cause of action.

The majority rule in the so-called Christian legal community (of which I consider myself

a member) has rejected this premise, however, and has decided to play on the enemy’s

playing field, use their equipment, and operate according to their rules. When they seem

to be making some headway, the enemy simply changes the rules and we believers

remain on the outside looking in. And God is further isolated from the fray. Some of us

do not agree and refuse to buy into this point of view.

Members of the bar who think and reason in accord with the 18th century principles of

law and government as embodied in our nation’s state and federal constitutions are

marginalized, repudiated, shunned, and in short, simply treated as outcasts. Believe me.

I’m not complaining or whining. I’m simply stating facts. At the same time, I’m most

encouraged because people like you DO understand English and are willing to do what

has to be done to promote the TRUTH.

At the heart of the matter is the compelling State interest test, which presupposes that no

fixed laws of right and wrong exist. Consequently, all courts now “balance the interests”

allegedly involved in the particular controversy before a court. The rejection of an

objective, fixed law is a rejection of God, the Creator, and His laws of nature and of

nature’s God as the common law that governs all things (whether we believe it or not). In

place of the Creator and the fixed laws of the Created Order, public policy in America

simply substitutes custom, tradition, and court decisions as the common law.

Our Christian “leaders” acknowledged and accepted this new common law after God’s

law was completely rejected once and for all in 1962 by Justice William Brennan who

invented the “compelling State interest” test out of whole cloth. When Justice Scalia

rejected the compelling State interest test in the 1989 Smith (peyote) case in favor of the

jurisdictional test that recognizes God’s exclusive jurisdiction over our religion, the

Christian lawyers joined the ACLU, People for the American Way, and a collection of

other Marxist organizations. Clearly, Marxists aka Socialists do not want any State

recognition of Scalia’s attempt to restore the exclusive jurisdiction of God over our free

exercise of religion.

In their quest to override the Smith case and its jurisdictional argument underpinnings,

our “leaders” opted to reject it and promote the “balancing test” unconstitutionally

devised by the Supreme Court. And of what does the “balancing test” consist? With no

absolute, fixed law, they start with the consideration of the “interests” of the parties

involved in the case or controversy. The State’s interest is always brought into the mix

for, after all, the court is now a primary maker of public policy having successfully

eliminated the common law of God and having assumed complete power over any

legislative act by judicial fiat. Any decision is generally recognized and accepted as law

by everyone unless, of course, it undermines the socialist agenda.

The State’s interest invariably supports the interests of one of the parties. If you think of

a first party’s interest as the thesis and the second party’s interest as the antithesis, then it

is the State that will determine the synthesis that will become the starting point in the next

court case on the subject. This, of course, is simply the direct application of the Hegelian

dialectic applied to the law thus making every court case an example of dialectical

materialism in the best Marxian sense.

Few understand what is going on. But I do not think this analysis is an extreme position.

I challenge anyone to show me where my understanding is wrong.

I personally know the people involved. In one instance, after sitting through a seminar

presentation of one friend who rejected the jurisdictional test of the Smith case, I told him

that I thought we were turning our back on God by supporting the “compelling State

interest test.” For the jurisdictional argument recognizes our religious freedom as an

unalienable right so that the State has no authority whatsoever to restrain our exercise of

the duty which we owe to our Creator. He simply turned his back on me and refused to

discuss the matter.

It is particularly unnerving when you realize that our Lord commanded us to “teach the

nations to obey all that He commanded us” (Matthew 28:18-20). Instead, with respect to

the civil magistrates of America, we simply ignore this command and accept the State as

the new found sovereign in our lives. We have no king but Caesar!

Our opposition is directed toward the wholesale rejection of the concept of unalienable

rights with respect to numerous subjects including, but not limited to, our religious

liberty, the education of our children, and the use of our private property. Some of us are

convinced that there is a remnant that agrees with us. And we believe that things can be

done to get our Lord more involved in the battle that is raging.

He is involved. But, in my opinion, His hands are significantly tied by the confusion that

reigns in the Body of Christ with respect to these matters. He will do nothing to butt into

the work of His people unless they want Him to do so. And only in those situations

where there is agreement. Our friends in the legal community who favor the compelling

State interest test make it clear where they stand. It will take the concerted efforts of

others of us to see His TRUTH ultimately prevail in this particular matter.

To make sure that we are within His will, we must operate within the authority structure

of our Lord if we are to see healing and restoration in our land. We are working toward

that end. We cannot make personal attacks on anyone. But it is essential that we come

down hard on any idea that is a rejection of God and His laws.

When considering whether or not to support any legislation concerning any matter, we

recommend that you look for any “exception” clause and reference to a compelling State

or governmental interest test. If the latter is involved, don’t support it. For this reason,

none of the particular pieces of legislation that you have on the website should be

supported.

We have much work ahead. But it is good to see that others are moving along parallel

paths.

Hopefully, the foregoing is helpful.

In His service,

Neil Markva

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

April 11, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

Natural Theology

“What can man know of God, Given:

Only his environment and himself?”

Kudos to friend, Winkey Pratney, for asking me that question four decades ago.

To illustrate, I made up a fiction story about a 16 year old boy named Kim. Kim lives in the deepest darkest jungles in Africa. He was orphaned at birth, nursed by a she-wolf, (Its my story. I can put wolves in my jungle!) and miraculously survived. Kim has never seen another human being. What can he know of God?

Pause and think about “Kim”. Is Kim able to think and reason? Is he healthy? He has survived to his 16th year! Is he groomed? (Mom’s don’t judge by boys you know!) He observes animals grooming themselves. Is he lonely? Does he wonder about things?

Observation and reason lead to discovery of natural laws. “A product requires a producer.”

One balmy night, Kim is on his back in a pleasant meadow. He thinks of the sky as a “product”. What can he discover about the producer by observing the sky?

He is very big or very fast!

He is interested in order. (movement of the stars)

He uses color. (each star seems to have a different color)

He has great power. (a meteor streaks across the sky)

Next day Kim looks at sunlight through a leaf. The leaf is a product.

Producer designs utility. (veins distribute nourishment & add strength to leaf)

Producer designs tiny things. (leaf has tiny cells)

Producer has purpose. (leaf is food for animals)

Kim sees his reflection in a pool of water. He thinks of himself as a product.

Kim has two eyes. (depth perception)

He is “fearfully and wonderfully made”.

Kim is too warm. (he swims in the pool)

Kim is hungry. (he eats fruit)

Kim discovers there is a wholesome means of fulfillment for every need he has.

The producer is concerned for him.

Kim discovers he has desires, can make plans, has emotions, has a personality.

If the product (Kim) has these non-physical attributes, the producer must have them also.

One morning Kim wakes to watch Hal, the industrious monkey, gather bananas for breakfast. Larry, the sneaky monkey, swipes some of Hal’s bananas, crosses the clearing and begins to eat. Hal comes unglued!

Kim follows Larry’s example – but – now Kim has a problem – conscience. He tries to give back the banana, but Hal won’t accept it. Kim has a discord in his gut. If he remembers that everything in his environment teaches him there is a wholesome means of fulfilment, he will seek for and find the solution. (The producer has many ways to guide him.)

Rather, Kim carves a face on a stick and worships it. No help! So he switches to a face on a rock. Then a bigger rock. Deep inside is a voice, “Help! Its not working.” Kim thinks, “No, its going to work. I’ll Build a fire in front of the rock. Maybe toss in a monkey or two.”

That is dumb! Each face Kim carved was uglier than before. He was carving a face in his own image. — The bottom line – ALL MEN ARE “KIM”. Every man has his environment macro and micro. Every man has his own person physically and extra-physically. Every man has a conscience until it is violated so much that it is lost.

Think about this. –

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man …” [Romans 1:18–23a]

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

April 9, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

God Is

Thought and prayer have led me to believe I am to write a series of blog posts about basic facts and principles around which people can unite.

When Moses received his commission at the “burning bush” he was asking how to unite his oppressed people in Egypt. The “Bush” replied, “I Am”. That translates to, “God Is”.

Until that fact is established, there can be little useful unity. Those who choose to deny that the God of the Bible exists must “hold under” the truth. The evidence is overwhelming.

There are numerous speculations. But the fact that “God is” is truth, fighting to the surface as would a drowning man.

Charles Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), a French philosopher oft quoted by our founders, wrote in, “The Spirit of Laws” –

“They who assert that a blind fatality produced the various effects we behold in this world talk very absurdly; for can any thing be more unreasonable than to pretend that a blind fatality could be productive of intelligent beings?”

The existence of “intelligent design” is exhibited in all of creation – (macro, micro, ourselves physically, ourselves extra-physically). – This SHOUTS, even DEMANDS, that there be an intelligent Creator.

Having accepted the existence of this creative “Higher Power”. Speculation builds about His / Its attributes. These are laws of nature: “A product demands a producer.”; “A product reveals attributes of its producer.” Again, the evidence is overwhelming. We will discuss the evidence of God’s attributes in a future blog.

People will choose to “believe” what they want to believe. What we believe has no effect upon what is true.

Lastly, it has been said, “Man’s greatest error is to make a mistake, then fall in love with it!” Human nature being what it is, we tend to let our pride push reason aside. Let us each agree that wisdom from above be easily entreated. I agree in advance to accept truth when I discover it. How about you?

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

April 5, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

PAG & PAG-Post Grad Schedules

+

Religious Freedom Act

The next “Principles of American Government” (PAG) interactive online course begins at 9:00 AM Pacific Time, Monday, June 8. If you are interested in taking the course please call or e-mail me right away.

Those who have completed the PAG course are invited to join the monthly post-graduate discussion. Phone or e-mail me to be added to the call list. The next PAG – PG discussion is scheduled for 1:30 PM (PT), Sunday, April 19.

For Post Grad discussion – (Something to consider & ponder.) The Religious Freedom Acts are being much discussed. Please read the following article and ponder the principles involved.

Religious Liberty and the Compelling State Interest Test

by Neil Markva

(This is an email that was sent by Neil December 20, 1999 to U.D. Roberts and others)

There are two types of lawyers today—Constitutional lawyers and Supreme Court

opinion lawyers. The former hold that the Court has no authority to make law, so that a

Supreme Court opinion is merely an opinion of men that binds only the parties to the

particular cause of action.

The majority rule in the so-called Christian legal community (of which I consider myself

a member) has rejected this premise, however, and has decided to play on the enemy’s

playing field, use their equipment, and operate according to their rules. When they seem

to be making some headway, the enemy simply changes the rules and we believers

remain on the outside looking in. And God is further isolated from the fray. Some of us

do not agree and refuse to buy into this point of view.

Members of the bar who think and reason in accord with the 18th century principles of

law and government as embodied in our nation’s state and federal constitutions are

marginalized, repudiated, shunned, and in short, simply treated as outcasts. Believe me.

I’m not complaining or whining. I’m simply stating facts. At the same time, I’m most

encouraged because people like you DO understand English and are willing to do what

has to be done to promote the TRUTH.

At the heart of the matter is the compelling State interest test, which presupposes that no

fixed laws of right and wrong exist. Consequently, all courts now “balance the interests”

allegedly involved in the particular controversy before a court. The rejection of an

objective, fixed law is a rejection of God, the Creator, and His laws of nature and of

nature’s God as the common law that governs all things (whether we believe it or not). In

place of the Creator and the fixed laws of the Created Order, public policy in America

simply substitutes custom, tradition, and court decisions as the common law.

Our Christian “leaders” acknowledged and accepted this new common law after God’s

law was completely rejected once and for all in 1962 by Justice William Brennan who

invented the “compelling State interest” test out of whole cloth. When Justice Scalia

rejected the compelling State interest test in the 1989 Smith (peyote) case in favor of the

jurisdictional test that recognizes God’s exclusive jurisdiction over our religion, the

Christian lawyers joined the ACLU, People for the American Way, and a collection of

other Marxist organizations. Clearly, Marxists aka Socialists do not want any State

recognition of Scalia’s attempt to restore the exclusive jurisdiction of God over our free

exercise of religion.

In their quest to override the Smith case and its jurisdictional argument underpinnings,

our “leaders” opted to reject it and promote the “balancing test” unconstitutionally

devised by the Supreme Court. And of what does the “balancing test” consist? With no

absolute, fixed law, they start with the consideration of the “interests” of the parties

involved in the case or controversy. The State’s interest is always brought into the mix

for, after all, the court is now a primary maker of public policy having successfully

eliminated the common law of God and having assumed complete power over any

legislative act by judicial fiat. Any decision is generally recognized and accepted as law

by everyone unless, of course, it undermines the socialist agenda.

The State’s interest invariably supports the interests of one of the parties. If you think of

a first party’s interest as the thesis and the second party’s interest as the antithesis, then it

is the State that will determine the synthesis that will become the starting point in the next

court case on the subject. This, of course, is simply the direct application of the Hegelian

dialectic applied to the law thus making every court case an example of dialectical

materialism in the best Marxian sense.

Few understand what is going on. But I do not think this analysis is an extreme position.

I challenge anyone to show me where my understanding is wrong.

I personally know the people involved. In one instance, after sitting through a seminar

presentation of one friend who rejected the jurisdictional test of the Smith case, I told him

that I thought we were turning our back on God by supporting the “compelling State

interest test.” For the jurisdictional argument recognizes our religious freedom as an

unalienable right so that the State has no authority whatsoever to restrain our exercise of

the duty which we owe to our Creator. He simply turned his back on me and refused to

discuss the matter.

It is particularly unnerving when you realize that our Lord commanded us to “teach the

nations to obey all that He commanded us” (Matthew 28:18-20). Instead, with respect to

the civil magistrates of America, we simply ignore this command and accept the State as

the new found sovereign in our lives. We have no king but Caesar!

Our opposition is directed toward the wholesale rejection of the concept of unalienable

rights with respect to numerous subjects including, but not limited to, our religious

liberty, the education of our children, and the use of our private property. Some of us are

convinced that there is a remnant that agrees with us. And we believe that things can be

done to get our Lord more involved in the battle that is raging.

He is involved. But, in my opinion, His hands are significantly tied by the confusion that

reigns in the Body of Christ with respect to these matters. He will do nothing to butt into

the work of His people unless they want Him to do so. And only in those situations

where there is agreement. Our friends in the legal community who favor the compelling

State interest test make it clear where they stand. It will take the concerted efforts of

others of us to see His TRUTH ultimately prevail in this particular matter.

To make sure that we are within His will, we must operate within the authority structure

of our Lord if we are to see healing and restoration in our land. We are working toward

that end. We cannot make personal attacks on anyone. But it is essential that we come

down hard on any idea that is a rejection of God and His laws.

When considering whether or not to support any legislation concerning any matter, we

recommend that you look for any “exception” clause and reference to a compelling State

or governmental interest test. If the latter is involved, don’t support it. For this reason,

none of the particular pieces of legislation that you have on the website should be

supported.

We have much work ahead. But it is good to see that others are moving along parallel

paths.

Hopefully, the foregoing is helpful.

In His service,

Neil Markva

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

March 23, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

Senator Ted Cruz announces for POTUS

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-i-am-running-for-president/

It is a long time until November 2016. The grass roots will often ignore the Primary races in the Spring of 2016, when the crucial choices are made.

Sen Cruz may not win the Primaries in enough states to win the nomination. If that is the case, I believe it will be because of the choices made by the Churches of America.

I suggest circulating this speech as I have.

Pray 2nd Chronicles 7:14 – Repent of YOUR evil ways. Humbly offer our Creator God, our faith and trust, that He will unite a righteous people to honor what He has created in America. Rise up and defend the civil government “we the people,” with His help, created to defend our God-given liberty.

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

March 17, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

Bring back the cleché

In these days of “sound-bite” learning, we would do well to bring back some of the old clechés. I have in mind – I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it!

In these days of politically correct speech – liberty of speech is eroding. More and more often, speech counter to the “social norm” is subject to censure or even punishment.

The next step beyond societal control of speech is control of thoughts.

Have you considered the laws against “discrimination”? If an employer chooses not to hire a person, how can anyone truly know his reason for doing so? Yet he can be charged with “discrimination” and must defend himself.

“Love the sinner” is ok – BUT – “Hate the sin” is politically incorrect. Homosexuality is clearly a wrong lifestyle choice. If we loved the sinner, we would warn him/her of the danger. Doing so will draw wrath. Such wrath is used to intimidate others from joining the chorus. Thus society loves the sinner, but lets them believe it is somehow ok.

This 85 year old man has learned that it only takes a little yeast to leaven the whole loaf.

My right to speak my thoughts freely, is protected by our Constitution – but – that right is not granted by the Constitution. It is my private property which is a gift from the Creator God.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.

Will you do the same for me?

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

March 14, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

An humble correction

Timeline –

First Great Awakening 1731 – 1755

Second Great Awakening 1790 – 1840

Charles Finney life-dates 1792 – 1875

In yesterday’s blog post, I said Finney preached during the First Great Awakening. That could not have been. His message was that of the First Awakening while the predominant message of his day was shifting toward the “Two Chapter Gospel.”

Thanks to my lifelong friend, John Hunter, for the correction.

Ben

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

March 13, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

Two Christian views – both valid

Christ summed up the whole Bible when He answered the question, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” –

If we can all agree that our Creator God has invested the last 6,000+ years doing His best to teach man how to love God and love others, we have a point of agreement to build upon.

I have recently enjoyed reading Stephen McDowell’s book, “Biblical Revival and the Transformation of Nations.” (Providence Foundation March, 2013) In it, McDowell traces an historical shift in revival focus.

“Much good came from the Second Great Awakening [1790-1840]: Millions of people were converted to Christ, morality increased, the church grew, slavery ended in large part due to the impetus of renewed Biblical values. However, the seeds of theological ideas contrary to those of the great revivals before this, began to be planted within the church. Fruition of these seeds became evident in the ‘revivals’ of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

“As pietism [extremely strict devotion] began to affect the church, many began to teach, what has more recently been called, the ‘Two Chapter Gospel’ instead of the ‘Four Chapter Gospel’. …”

The “Two Chapter Gospel”

Chapter 1 Fall – Man is fallen and needs a Savior. Christ came to earth to restore man’s relationship to God.

Chapter 2 Redemption – So that man may live with Him throughout eternity, and the consummation of the end of the age.

The focus is upon the salvation of man. The work of the church is to see as many people saved as possible. In this view the Kingdom of God is largely about man’s salvation and life in eternity.

McDowell continues-

“These two chapters (Fall and Redemption) are certainly true and important, but this is not the whole Gospel story. The ‘Four Chapter Gospel,’ which is what the church generally believed and preached for eighteen centuries, recognizes God’s created order and purpose before the Fall as well as the broad redemptive work of Christ.”

The “Four Chapter Gospel”

Chapter 1 Creation – God’s creation is good. Man, vice-regent of earth, is created in God’s image. The ‘Creation Commission’ and ‘Cultural Mandate’ require man to work with what he has and replenish it.. (Genesis 1:26-28;2:15)

Chapter 2 Fall – Man disobeyed God. Everything got messed up. Expelled – man, could no longer care for God’s creation. (Genesis 3:6-19; 6:5, 11)

Chapter 3 Redemption – Christ came into the world to restore all that sin had affected. Not only man, but all creation which groans for His redemption. (John 3:16; Romans 8:9-22)

Chapter 4 Restoration – Personal conversion is important. For what purpose have you entered the Kingdom of God? If we are to learn to love God and love others we must work to restore His creation order of things. Loving God and loving others obliges us to fulfill the “Cultural or Dominion Mandate.”

“The end of redemptive history is seen with the coming of the ‘New Jerusalem’ (Revelation 3:12), the City of God. When the new city comes, the ‘tree of life’ (Revelation 22:12), the same tree of life in the garden, is now in the midst of a developed city. The Cultural Mandate has been fulfilled. This is the consummation.”

Charles Finney, a major American evangelist of the “Four Chapter Gospel,” preached in America’s “First Great Awakening” (1731 – 1755) Concerning the Kingdom of God, he wrote:

"Every member must work or quit. No honorary members. … Let us not ignore this fact, my dear brethren; but let us lay it to heart, and be thoroughly awake to our responsibility in respect to the morals of this nation. …

“The church must take right ground in regard to politics. … Every man can know for whom he gives his vote. And if he will give his vote only for honest men, the country will be obliged to have upright rulers. …

“God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the church will take right ground.

“Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God.

“It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation were becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you, he does see it, and he will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they take."

Stephen McDowell concludes his chapter with, “We are not redeemed to get to Heaven, but to bring Heaven to earth. … The creation itself will be set free through Christ’s redeeming work. (Romans 8:19-22) …

“While Finney and others taught that Christians must change civil society, the conversion of men began to become primary, and by the end of the nineteenth century much of the church had abandoned teaching societal transformation. [They] preached the sovereignty of God, but they did not think it applied to the state. The state began to assume the role of the sovereign in regards to law, education, economics, and pubic life.”

We, as the body of Christ, need to be praying for a “Four Chapter Gospel” revival.

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

March 6, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

Apologies!

This is a reminder message for all those who have completed a PAG course.

My apologies to the others on this list. – – –

The monthly PAG – Post Graduate class will be at 1300H, Sunday, March 8th. (Next Sunday)

Those already on the call list have received a direct e-mail reminder. If you are a graduate and wish to join us, please contact me ASAP to be added to the call list. There is no charge for participation.

ACH Study Groups

Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders

7659 Gingerblossom Drive

Citrus Heights, CA 95621

916-722-2501 histbuff@garlic.com

www.ACHStudyGroups.com

March 6, 2015

This is a letter to our friends –

The internet is changing

No one has read the new internet regulations. One thing is certain. “Big Brother” has climbed on the bandwagon to help steer.

Over the years, these columns and blogs have earned a loyal following. In the unlikely event that these blog posts “disappear,” I hope you will stop now and record the e-mail address, phone number and physical address somewhere. Then, if need be, contact me.

There will always be a way to be heard.

John Locke went to the fundamentals, “[W]hat State men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man.”

Nothing exists without a set of laws to govern it. Were you placed as the only person on earth, you would be in a “State of perfect Freedom”. You could go where you liked, eat and sleep when you choose, without getting permission. However: You could not fly because you would still be governed by the “Law of Nature”.

Suppose you discover another person. Now there are two of you. You reason, “If I do not want that person to step on my toe, then I should not step on his toe.” – – You have just discovered another “Law of Nature.” Your “freedom” stops at the tip of his nose.

Dear reader, that is the sort of liberty upon which our great nation was founded. That liberty did not come from government, it was a gift from God. BTW – God does exist!

I do not consider “belief in God’s existence” to be a “religion.” It is a fact. Evidence is overwhelming. Disbelief is foolish. On the other hand, religious denominations are created around differences in understanding among men, all of whom are imperfect.

America’s founders recognized that men must be free to develop their individual understanding. To be at liberty, one must be free to search for truth where and how he “thinks fit.” Our founders saw their goal in forming the structure (laws) of America to create a government that would safeguard that “State of perfect Freedom”.

I am an American possessing God-given liberty. I will not be told I may not pray where and when I “think fit.” I will not be told I may not share my thoughts with others whether or not they are “politically correct.”