Render Unto Caesar

Note from Heidi: I had a reader email me this weekend and say, “Are you okay? We haven’t heard from you for a while!” So sweet, but Lisa you didn’t give me any email address so I could write you back, so I’ll just tell everybody — I’m fine, just busy!

The other thing is, when I set up this Web site, I was determined not to inundate you with information you could get just everywhere else on the Web, so I’m picky about what I put here. But I think, as Jack says in his article, below, that part of the problem with finding intriguing and informative news is that, “The signs continue to pile up. . . almost to the point where we can’t see them anymore because they are so ubiquitous. Like being unable to see the forest for the trees.” So I’ll see something and go, “Yeah, yeah — we already know that!” Hard to tell what my readers know, so I make a judgment call!

Know that I’m fine and JESUS IS COMING AGAIN!!! Maranatha!

By Jack Kinsella

To be “sovereign” means to have supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory or country. In centuries past, the concept of sovereignty was linked to the ability to act in the best interests of sovereign citizens.

From time immemorial, the definition of a sovereign was two-fold. Only a sovereign had the power to levy taxes or to put a man to death.

The Treaty of Wesphalia signed in 1648 set forth the basic principles of sovereignty, but all spring from those two basic powers. The power to impose taxes, or tribute, is the bedrock definition of sovereignty.

The Jews of Israel at the time of Jesus were NOT sovereign citizens, but rather, citizens under foreign occupation.

That they were not sovereign is clearly established in Matthew 22:15-21 where the Pharisees attempt to trip Jesus up by tricking Him into making either a blasphemous or a politically insurgent statement.

The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for Jews to pay tribute (taxes) to Rome. The Pharisees hoped to trick Him into a yes or no answer. If He answered “Yes” then He was open to charges that He accepted Caesar’s sovereign rule instead of God’s.

If He answered “No” then he was open to charges of subverting Caesar’s sovereign authority — the charge for which He was eventually brought before Pilate anyway.

The Jews had to bring Him before Pilate because lacking sovereign authority, the Jewish courts had no authority to sentence someone to death on their own. Jesus’ reply settled the issue of legal sovereignty under God this way:

“But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto Him a penny. And He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto Him, Caesar’s. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:18-21)

What does this verse teach us? Among other things, it defines political sovereignty as the authority to levy taxes. Since Caesar was the political sovereign of the time,Jesus said it was lawful to pay tribute, or taxes, as a recognition of his sovereignty.

It was Caesar’s system and Caesar’s government and therefore Caesar’s money to begin with.

“When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way.” (Matthew 22:22)

This passage, taken together with Romans 13, is interpreted to mean that Christians are required to pay taxes to the sovereign authority that has the power to levy them.

But it also defines “sovereign authority” as the authority to levy taxes, or as this Scripture puts it, to demand “tribute” as a recognition of his sovereign authority.

The Jews had their own money, but they used Caesar’s when it benefitted them and they used Caesar’s government when it benefitted them. In return, Caesar let them pretend they were sovereign, except in matters of importance to Caesar.

Assessment:

This week, the UN’s Climate Summit in Durban called for the creation of an “International Court of Climate Justice” under the authority of a UN bureaucracy that would force the West to pay a “climate debt” in the form of a tax that would make “reparations” to Third World nations for messing up their part of the world with our nasty old technology.

The UN has decided that the West (meaning primarily, America) has an historical burden of responsibility to fix the “problem” of global warming.

Global warming has begun to reverse itself naturally, as we discussed yesterday. But global warming has taken on the status of a religious faith — to a True Believer, questioning man-made global warming is a form of heresy.

If the UN is going to make its push for sovereign recognition, this is the ONE issue that will make it happen. The UN once tried to unite the world under its authority to protect us from UFOs and extra terrestrials,but that didn’t really work out.

It has tried to unite the world under its authority on religious grounds, suggesting that the world’s religions would be less dangerous if they were governed by a central, supra-national authority. But the only religion suited to such a system is the eco-religion of earth worship.

The UN has tried to unite the world under its authority by stressing eco-religion and internationalism since its inception, beginning by indoctrinating educators. Assistant US Secretary of State William Benton addressed a UNESCO meeting in 1946, outlining UN planners’ long-term outlook for the newly created body:

As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism . . . . We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.”

The first “Earth Day” held on Vladimir Lenin’s birthday in 1970, was viewed primarily as a “flower power” festival for hippies, but the hippies of 1970 became the legislators of the 80′s, 90′s and today.

As a consequence, the 1970s witnessed an unprecedented explosion in the number of environmental organizations and in the number of people who joined and supported these organizations.

The Trilateral Commission published a book entitled Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil.

David Rockefeller wrote the foreword; Maurice Strong wrote the introduction. Strong said:

This interlocking . . . is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.

And now, here we are, on the cusp of 2012 and the New York Times has come out in support of the Durban Summit’s proposal for a “modest global tax” that the NYTimes calls, the “Robin Hood Tax.”

The piece is headed by a picture of a group of French Useful Idiots wearing Robin Hood hats.

“They call it the Robin Hood tax a tiny levy on trades in the financial markets that would take money from the banks and give it to the world’s poor. And like the mythical hero of Sherwood Forest, it is beginning to capture the public’s imagination.”

By “the public” the New York Times means, Occupy Wall Streeters, college kids with no life experience, Marxist theologians, socialist leaders and the self-loathing rich . . .

“Driven by populist anger at bankers as well as government needs for more revenue, the idea of a tax on trades of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments has attracted an array of influential champions, including the leaders of France and Germany, the billionaire philanthropists Bill Gates and George Soros, former Vice President Al Gore, the consumer activist Ralph Nader, Pope Benedict XVI and the archbishop of Canterbury.”

The Europeans evidently love the idea of granting sovereign powers to the United Nations, primarily because to Europeans, sovereignty is cheap. They’ve given it away, had it taken away, had others win it back for them, only to give it away again, for most of their long existence.

There is some momentum behind this, said Simon Tilford, chief economist of the Center for European Reform in London. If they keep the show on the road, they probably will attempt to run with this.

Joining them from this side of the pond are the usual collections of looters and moochers. . . .

“The Robin Hood tax has also become a rallying point for labor unions, nongovernmental organizations and the Occupy Wall Street movement, which view it as a way to claw back money from the top 1 percent to help the other 99 percent.”

The Obama administration has expressed sympathy — in principle — with surrendering the sovereign authority to exact tribute (or taxes) over to the United Nations.

“The Obama administration has also been lukewarm, expressing sympathy but saying it would be hard to execute, could drive trading overseas and would hurt pension funds and individual investors in addition to banks.”

“Administration officials say they would prefer a tax on the assets of the largest banks as a way to discourage them from risky activities.”

It reads like a chapter from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” with the looters and the moochers clamoring to take what is not theirs, with one union leader equating their demands to Old West bank robber Jesse James.

“Labor groups like the nurses’ union and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. see the tax as a way to finance job creation programs to fight high unemployment in the United States and Europe.”

I found this following quote particularly revealing. To looters and moochers, rich people are not like real people, but rather, they are some kind of “other” worthy of hatred, (like Jews). To moochers and looters, a tax on financial transactions would only hurt the rich, and not “ordinary people.”

“British actor Bill Nighy, who has made online videos promoting the tax, calls it a beautiful idea. It would raise enough money to solve problems at home and overseas, and it could do it without hurting ordinary people, he said.”

In 1934, Hitler and the Nazis personified ‘the rich’ as ‘the Jews’ allowing him to blame the Jews for all Germany’s economic woes without alienating his rich allies.

To the modern global fascist, “the rich” and “the Jews” are still synonymous, excepting those billionaires like George Soros and Bill Gates whose fortunes are so huge they can afford to be fascists.

The Bible says that by the time the antichrist arrives on the scene, there will be some form of global government in waiting, headquartered out of Rome, whose power and authority is not military, but financial.

“And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.” (Revelation 6:2)

The rider on the white horse is the antichrist. He sets out on a campaign of conquest, and successfully conquers, but note his weapons. A bow without arrows. It depicts a bloodless conquest.

Revelation 13 reveals the mechanism of conquest and control as a centralized economy that is overseen by a religious authority. In Revelation 13:11 we are introduced to the False Prophet. Read down through Revelation 13:11-18.

The antichrist is the one worshipped. It is the False Prophet that demands worship in exchange for the Mark, not the antichrist.

So let’s summarize. The UN is seeking sovereign authority via the religion of global warming, which enjoys the support of the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the champions of the Far Left Marxist concept of “social justice’.

The UN hopes to gain that sovereign authority by imposing a centralized global financial tax that enjoys the complete political support of European socialism and is primarily aimed at the West; not the Kings of the East, the Russian Gog, or the Third World kings of the south.

The Bible says that the government of antichrist will be headquartered in Europe, and will NOT include Russia, China or any part of what is today the Third World, but ONLY the industrialized West (Europe, USA, Canada, etc.)

And so it goes. The signs continue to pile up. . . almost to the point where we can’t see them anymore because they are so ubiquitous. Like being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Twenty years ago, a story like this one would take one’s breath away with its specific and detailed relevance to the prophecies of the coming antichrist. Today, it barely rates a mention.

We’ve become so used to seeing the prophecies of the Bible come alive on our TV screens and newspaper headlines that we’ve become numb to what they actually signify.

The Bible is true. These are the last days. We can practically hear the footsteps of the antichrist coming down the hall.

And it is THIS generation that will not pass until ALL these things are fulfilled.

Maranatha!