Marilyn Writes

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 year banking career, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, and other major industry publications. The American Bankers Association (ABA) published Barnewall’s Profitable Private Banking: the Complete Blueprint, in 1987. She taught private banking at Colorado University for the ABA and trained private bankers in Singapore.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

MARRIAGE: RITE OF CHURCH OR GOVERNMENT?

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
August 30, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

“Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.” Jeremiah 26:6.

Long before the birth of Jesus Christ and Christianity, marriage was perceived by the world’s oldest civilizations as the best means to insure property would be lawfully passed to the legitimate children of a specific sire. Men were the property owners; women were more or less the property of men – much as they still are in various parts of the world.

Legitimate children were – and still are – defined as progeny born of a man and a woman who in a public ceremony that is registered with the governing power commit themselves to one another for life. Marriage has always been the public declaration by two people who commit themselves to one another, swearing to put aside non-marital physical relationships and vowing fidelity to one another. The primary reason for this vow has to do with the legitimacy of offspring. John Smith didn’t want to leave the worldly goods he had worked for all of his life to the sons and daughters of Phil Jones.  Too, there were crowns to be inherited legitimately.

Though love is usually present when people marry, the reason for a public commitment of fidelity has nothing to do with love. It has to do with offspring. Society could care less whether two people who get married love one another. How two people feel about one another has very little impact on the social order. Knowing who is responsible for children – for feeding and clothing them, for educating them, for making preparations to care for them should one member of the marriage die – has a great impact on society. Why? Because society will suffer – much as America is suffering today with so many fatherless homes, so much poverty caused by illegitimate children for whom no financial responsibility can be enforced. When illegitimate children – children born outside of marriage – are numerous and are dropped on society to care for, it is costly.

Americans can look at the welfare rolls to see just how costly it is – and providing a home, food and clothing for those who cannot or choose not to work is only the beginning. Gangs made up of young males and females who have no strong family to guide and teach them to love and respect themselves (which makes it possible for them to love and respect others) abound in America today. This is a far more dangerous issue than owning a gun because socially abused human spirits provide the distraught hand that shoots the guns. Yet, typical of those who cannot see through the obvious to the subtle, liberals oppose guns and support a moral code that encourages socially abused human spirits.

Same sex relationships do not produce children. Thus, marriage has always been defined as being between one man and one woman... until the Supreme Court of the United States said otherwise.

This article isn’t about whether gay marriage is right or wrong nor is it a statement about the gay lifestyle. Such decisions are above my pay grade. I’d say “some of my best friends are...” (and they are) but I hate that statement.

This article is about how the church may be signing its own death warrant by ignoring what has always been considered a Christian sacrament: Marriage. Pastors, priests and parishioners need to know what is coming. Personal opinion is meaningless in the face of Presidential power that sees fit to light up the exterior of the White House – a House that belongs to the citizens of this country, not to the President or his wife or the gay community – splashing the colors of the gay rainbow to light up the night in celebratory victory when the Supremes told America’s churches gays had a right to the sacrament of marriage. Isn't that a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion with no government interference?

If there is any question about whether gays will force churches to provide equal opportunity for marriage rites the answer lies in a Colorado baker who has paid huge penalties for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple – and that happened before the Supreme Court decision. Bakeries refusing to provide wedding cakes for same sex couples face large fines. In addition, the Colorado baker is being forced to give comprehensive staff training, ensure compliance, and to file quarterly reports with the government for two full years. He had to provide sensitivity training to his employees – including his 88-year old mother.

Our spiritual leaders lost their freedom from government interference when Senator Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to silence the church... to eliminate the significant impact it had on public opinion especially when it involved political matters and public policy. Senator Johnson proposed 501 (c) (3) tax exempt status as if the Congress were doing the religious community a favor. The fact is, churches were not taxable to begin with and this legislation was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Prior to application to the IRS for tax exemption under 501 (c) (3), the First Amendment protected churches from falling under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Go online and look at IRS Code § 508 (c) (1) (A). You will find that churches and their auxiliaries have mandatory exceptions from the tax code – even the IRS says so. It was and is unnecessary for churches to apply for tax exempt status because they already have it – and that status is protected by the First Amendment. When churches signed up for tax exempt status, they lost their First Amendment rights.

That information is provided for people who wonder why the silence of America’s churches echoes so loudly throughout the halls of a nation that is rapidly becoming morally bankrupt and politically uninformed.

Churches that unnecessarily applied for 501 (c) (3) tax exemption may find it more difficult to opt out than it was to opt into the system. The corporate church may need to be dissolved and a new church may have to replace it. Better that than to be muzzled by the government. Better that than being forced to provide religious services considered sacraments by the church in opposition to Biblical dictates.

So churches declare your tax exempt corporation to be dissolved, re-name your church leaving corporate status behind, and then get a little creative with the way you perform traditional church services and rites.

For example, inform government of the new limits the church is placing on itself.
“ABC Church will no longer perform marriage ceremonies that register any two people as a married couple under the laws of any State in the United States of America.

“ABC Church will no longer register marriages with the State or sign marriage licenses issued by the State. ABC Church is not an Agent of the State and is not a 501 (c) (3) corporation. ABC Church membership has, in recognition of its First Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States, voted to remove our Church from joining people in what is defined by State and Federal Governments as a legal marriage. Rather, our Church membership believes the role of ABC Church is to perform a Rite of Marriage Ceremony using the guidelines provided by the Holy Bible and which has standing only within the Church and with family members of the Church. This Rite of Marriage we will now perform commits people to marriage only in the eyes of God, as defined by the Holy Bible. It may or may not comply with State expectations or requirements and thus will not be submitted to the State as a lawful marriage.

“If two people wish what is termed a ‘legal marriage recognized by the State,’ those two people must apply to the State for the appropriate license and go to an appropriate Agent of the State to make any and all commitments required by the State to be recognized as lawfully married by the State and other government entities. Those who seek a State-approved marriage as defined by the State and Federal Governments will be unable to acquire that status at ABC Church which recognizes the State’s authority to define for the State the parameters of what is and what is not defined as ‘marriage’. This same couple may request a church service at ABC Church and we will consider granting it based on church, not government, guidelines."

In other words “We resign as an Agent of the State in joining people in marriage as defined by and according to the laws of both State and Federal Governments.” Before that can be done, however, churches must dissolve their corporations and give up access to tax exempt laws.

How hard is that?

I’m not a lawyer and before any church takes any action of this kind it needs to confer with legal counsel. What I am suggesting is that there are lawful ways to regain the protections of the First Amendment for Churches and freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. There are ways to regain the voice of authority regarding political and public policy issues and to regain control of what the church will and will not do because government demands it. There are ways to regain your First Amendment rights. Begin by realizing that God never intended the Church to become a corporation that functions under the jurisdiction of any government.

Perhaps part of the problem is Romans 13:1-2 which references the importance of believers honoring governmental authority in general. “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Italics added..)

Other Bible verses tell us that the laws of government are secondary to the laws of God and when government demands of Christians that they ignore the word of God and obey the laws of government, Christians are to obey God, not government.

If you wonder where this is heading, take a look at some actions that have already taken place in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding gay marriage.

Baptist-affiliated Baylor University has removed a ban on “homosexual acts” from its sexual conduct code. Two members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, Goshen College and Eastern Mennonite University, have added “sexual orientation” to their nondiscrimination policies. Staff and faculty who are in same sex marriages may now be hired. First Baptist Church of Greenville, SC adopted policy allowing for the ordination of homosexual ministers and gay marriage.

It appears the church stopped representing the needs of its flock and the dictates of God the moment they allowed themselves to be tempted into the tax advantages offered by government – which really offered them nothing they didn’t already have. When churches accepted the government’s tax exempt status, it accepted government’s jurisdiction over it.

Faith is only real when it complies with God’s word, not government dictates. Perhaps our churches even more than others need to be reminded that freedom is not free – or tax exempt. Perhaps churches need to be reminded that freedom of religion cannot occur when the churches whose job it is to teach Christ’s flock are Agents of the State with a message limited to what the State allows to be said.

Churches need to give serious thought to the real objectives of the Lesbian/Gay movement as explained by Matt Barber when he said they were: “1) The ultimate destruction of marriage; 2) forced affirmation of (what the Bible views as) sexual deviancy under penalty of law, and 3) the eventual criminalization of Christianity.” (Copy in parentheses added by me.)

Rarely do we get advance notice of our own demise. You don’t even have to be able to read tea leaves to figure this one out.

I have no comment about the sexual preferences of any individual. It is not for me to judge. I do, however, believe the sacrament of marriage exists only between a man and a woman and for gays or government to insist the church ignore this sacrament is blasphemous.

As most segments of society granted minority status find out, "equal" does not mean "identical." Nor does it mean "preferential."


© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

Saturday, May 30, 2015

FREDDIE GRAY ARREST RECORD




  


03-20-15 dealing cocaine
08-28-08 possession of narcotics
10-05-12 illegal gambling
01-25-14 possession of narcotics over 10 grams
08-24-07 manufacturing and distribution narcotics
08/29-07 distribution of narcotics
09-16-08 distribution of narcotics
04-16-08 distribution of narcotics
05-09-12 distribution of narcotics
01-04-15 distribution of narcotics
12-31-14 distribution of narcotics
05-13-14 stolen property
07-16-08 distribution of narcotics
03-28-08 possession of narcotics
02-12-08 distribution of narcotics
09-29-13 distribution of narcotics
12-04-14 distribution of narcotics
12-04-14 possession of narcotics
03-20-08 burglary
03-20-08 possession of narcotics
09-21-07 distribution of narcotics
04-30-08 unlawful possession (two counts)



Full disclosure: I was a teenager just out of high school when I got a job with the Denver Police Department. I transcribed crime reports from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m.  The “wagon room” where police officers reported for duty was right next to my office.  It was also the room where prisoners were brought, walked across the room to the elevator and taken to the Denver City Jail.  On numerous occasions I witnessed abuse of prisoners... policemen getting their jollies by beating drunks with their night sticks as they took them to jail.  I reported it to the on duty Captain several times and because nothing was done to correct it, I resigned.  It was awful.  It was totally abusive and I wanted no part of it, least of all being a witness to it.  Thus, I am not naïve about police officers who violate the public trust.  Later in life I became very involved on the Board of Directors of Americans for Effective Law Enforcement to try to correct problems with police departments and communities that do not understand the problems police officers face every day.

            Because of my background, my natural inclination would be to side with the abused rather than the abuser.  In this case, I do not.

 

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, TRIBALISM, OLIGARCHY, ELITISM, AND CRONY CAPITALISM




By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
March 17, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

One of the things white Americans are going to have to come to grips with is that that within 15 years (probably less) our race will be a minority in this country.

I am of an age that I well remember being told in the 1950s that the world was headed for over-population. It would, we were told, result in mass starvation and responsible American families should have no more than two children. The birth rate in white America subsided almost immediately.

Communism, socialism, tribalism, and oligarchies all have one thing in common: Someone else is responsible for your life. From paying for your education, determining what kind of information will be contained in that education/indoctrination, to your career choices, the fuel your car will use (or whether you will be allowed to have a car or be forced to live in cities of six million in population where people are stacked and packed on top of one another that are scattered around the country), who/if you marry, how/if children can be had, at what age medical care will be withdrawn… all (according to Agenda 21) are decisions about you to be made by others.

A large percentage of people who live in nations of the world that subscribe to one of these political philosophies like the idea of having someone else determine what they can and cannot do. They like being relieved of the responsibilities that go with decision making. Every decision we make in life involves risk and a lot of people are uncomfortable with risk management. If they are not the ones making decisions, they feel they won’t be blamed for failure that results from them.

For those of us who think the ultimate glory of life is controlling our own destiny, this is not just a strange human reaction to government power, it is downright insane. It reeks of malignant, evil energy. For Christians, the “it takes a village” mentality totally violates the message of individual responsibility imparted by Jesus Christ, turning His words into group thought with no personal responsibility for individual behavior, no judgments between good and evil because God tells us He will render judgment. If that interpretation of Biblical text was accurate, He would a) not have given us a brain so we can judge what is good and what is evil; b) He would not have provided the Ten Commandments without specific definitions as to what each means (He leaves that to our judgment); and c) we would confess our sins as a group, not individually.

As I look back on those messages of reduced births from the 1950s (my teenage years) and evaluate the misbegotten illegal immigration policies implemented by various government administrations and departments, a pattern emerges.

When one views illegal immigration from a totally neutral position, it is easy to see from actions taken that government has preferences about which illegals they will welcome by ignoring their presence, and which ones they will pursue for being in America illegally. You can say “that’s not true” all you want but the statistics defeat your words. The President’s own words prove my point and his Attorney General’s actions – or lack of them – prove it, too.

Those who cross the Rio Grande River with impunity and receive great rewards for their law breaking have similar traits: 1) They come from tribal cultures where a chieftain of one kind or another has controlled their lives with the same authority royalty once had in old Europe. 2) They are “breeders.” They have far more children than they can afford to feed or educate and depend on the generosity of others to take care of their parental responsibilities which they abrogate (if they recognize such responsibilities exist at all). 3) They are not white. 4) The people who are white and would like to immigrate to America are denied the opportunity and if they enter America illegally they are pursued by law enforcement which ignores illegals from categories 1), 2), and 3).

I do not refer here simply to the financially poor Mexicans who illegally cross our border, but to the Central Americans who do the same. I refer also to Middle Easterners of whom almost all are Muslims (who also have many children). What we saw in Paris during the second week of January 2015 is reflective of the problems being caused everywhere by Muslims who can’t stand the countries in which they live and run away to London or Paris – or Detroit – where they make demands that their adopted government change their country so it is more like the old country they were forced to leave because of despicable living conditions. The message is: “I want all of the advantages that a free enterprise economy produces relative to advancement of civilization without any of the responsibilities that people who live in a free enterprise economy must bear if those advantages are going to be maintained.” Sharia law provides an escape route from decision making because it makes decisions for you in every area of your life.

It can thus be said that those who breed, those to whom being a member of a tribal community comes naturally, and those who are not white are welcomed to our shores. Others are rejected by our immigration policies. I dare anyone reading this who thinks my words are racist or are otherwise slanted to provide meaningful evidence that there is one factual error in my comment. There is not. It is an accurate evaluation of immigration policy in America today.

I mentioned above that tribal cultures are run by authority figures with the same power royalty once had throughout the world. Why do you suppose the influence of royal rule was so dramatically diminished over 200 years ago? Gee, you don’t suppose the establishment of a free nation called the United States of America had anything to do with it, do you? You don’t suppose that the tremendous growth of this new nation – its economic success and stability, offering opportunity for all to prosper without a class system that had outlived its usefulness – had anything to do with it? Of course it did!

Here is my theory which is based on thinking long and hard about the logical outcome of our current immigration policy. It is simple logic.

The white race is the only one that has throughout history resisted long-term slavery of any kind, including tribalism, communism, and socialism. As far back as 1100, citizens of England demanded and got the Charter of Liberties signed by their king because of royal abuses of power over the people of that nation. When that didn’t work, they got the Magna Carta signed. When that did not provide sufficient protection from the royal abuse of power, in 1628 they demanded King Charles sign the Petition of Rights. In 1641 came the Grand Remonstrance and Charles was gone. In 1688 King James was forced to sign the Glorious Resolution which was the English Bill of Rights… it became official in 1689. All of these “Agreements” were demanded by the people because royalty becomes tyrannical and abusive. And then because of the royal abuse of power in 1776 we had the document so meaningful to Americans: The Declaration of Independence.

The white race is the only one that has throughout world history resisted long-term slavery – has been a proponent of the “give me liberty or give me death” philosophy since we began recording history.

Since America’s immigration policies favor admitting only illegal immigrants who consider tribalism not only an accepted but a preferred way of life, it gives rise to a question. Is the reason behind America’s immigration policy – amnesty for illegals – required so tribal types can take from whites their majority status in historically white nations? Does government need to replace whites as the dominant race in these nations so the final plans for a New World Order can be implemented with minimum objection or opposition by whites who resist tribalism, communism and socialism as a form of slavery? One world government cannot be established without America if our standard of living is too high. That standard must be brought down to the level of other nations. Otherwise, other nations will not accept world government because of the perceived preferential treatment of those with a higher standard of living than is available to people of less advanced countries of the world. Why are they less advanced? Because they subscribe to tribalism, socialism, or communism.

The Mexicans and Central Americans who enter our country illegally with the hidden invitation and blessings of government are the poor of those nations. People born in poverty in Mexico and Central America generally descend from Indian bloodlines. Indians, in general, proudly prefer the tribal culture to that of individualism. There’s nothing wrong with that. Whites prefer individualistic social orders – and individualism opposes communism and socialism and oligarchies… forms of government required if there is to be a world government – a New World Order. Tribal cultures not only accept but approve of communism, socialism and oligarchies which are compatible with tribal philosophies. The forms of government from which they all flee throughout the world provide the hard evidence of the truth of my words.

The same is true of Muslims… their history is one of tribal cultures. It is one of the reasons that no matter how hard America tries to nation build in its own image in the Middle East, there will be no individualist free enterprise system of government established with these tribal people. They are tribal to their Muslim souls. All tribal people are. It is not something that can be changed… nor can the individualistic nature of those who seek the opportunity to manage the risks of controlling their own destinies be changed.

If there is fault to be assigned here, it is the arrogant fault of nations who believe they can force an individualist-based system of government on people whose natural inclinations require tribalism.

These needs inside of people to be either an individualist or a tribalist don’t go just an inch or two deep. They run very deep and are not subject to change. They encompass a total social order – which is why Muslims have Sharia law (and want it wherever they re-settle when they leave their homeland behind to seek more opportunity – which, under Sharia, is impossible to achieve).

If we look at the two different cultures, tribalism and individualism, we see that each comes naturally to certain groups of people. Both cultures have positives; both have negatives. Each is needed by the other to achieve at maximum levels of productivity, but because neither understands the other and because each fears the other, our modern culture discourages either group from doing what it was put on earth to do. Each tries to force itself on the other and war always follows such attempts. Instead, both groups need to use their positive strengths to work together.

Individualists are mostly entrepreneurs who consider control of their own destiny the ultimate objective. They are the inventors and business owners of society. In America, they provide employment for 70 percent of the total population. The fact that not all whites are individualists is obvious by merely looking at the tribal mentalities of Progressive Liberals. The fact that not all Muslims or Mexicans or Central Americans are by nature tribal can be seen in independent business ownership.

Each group has a purpose. Entrepreneurial individualists invent things… Steven Jobs who started Apple is a good example of that. His business partner at the beginning, Bill Gates, is a good example of the tribal (or corporate) mentality. I have always believed it was this basic difference between the two that caused the break between them. After the break, Steven Jobs and Apple came close to failure. Gates was brought back into the Apple picture to help solve the problems caused by Jobs’ inability to deal with the large corporate environment that resulted from his successful entrepreneurialism at Apple. The job of creating belongs to the individualist; the job of creating corporate structure – safety and security – belongs to the security-motivated tribal person.

The rogue political elements currently running things worldwide understand this and are taking advantage of overly confident individualists, using their own successes and money to quietly eliminate them. They do so by preying on the security drives of tribalists, giving them as many something for nothing deals money can buy… money wrung out of individualist wallets. They think they’re pretty smart – but haven’t yet come to grips with the fact that innovation does not come from either the elitist or tribalist segments. It comes only from the imaginations of individualists. As I said, both groups are a necessary commodity to a successful social order. If they succeed in eliminating the individualist segment, they will succeed at eliminating innovation and progress.

To come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether a society is tribal or individually dominated, look at the decision-making authority of government in opposition to the people, and look at the court system that supports or doesn’t support it. When one looks at these two things in America today, it can be said that we have become (or are darned close to) a tribal/socialist society. But one must look closely enough to see if tribalism exists because it is what the people want or because the people have the socialist boot of tyranny firmly planted on their necks.

Tribalism will exist in America when freedom-loving whites are no longer the majority population and will be quickly morphed into socialism and then communism (even though the communist system has failed everywhere it has been tried).

Due to the bloody violence used by Muslims who have absolutely no respect for “civilized wars” (if there is such a thing), there is an attitude of disrespect towards Islam and the Muslims who subscribe to it. Who can respect any people whose social barbarism permits the live burial of Christian children? The beheading of innocents? To those Muslims who say Islam is a religion of peace, all I can say is I believe what I see, not what you say. I say the same thing to those who call themselves Christians but who approve of abortion.

The attitude is quite similar to the disrespect and hatred shown towards Jews by the National Socialist (NAZI) Party in Germany prior to World War II. I do not suggest there is a correlative in place that justifies the comparison. The Jews so hated by the Nazis were not beheading people or raping young girls or burying young boys in sand while they were still alive as Muslims do. They didn’t burn a pilot shot down in war while holding him in a cage. The Jews were not barbaric. They were (and are), however, the bankers of the world – the name Rothschild is not the best liked around the world.

I suggest to white people that we understand what is being done to us. The populations of the world are being restructured so those with tribal histories can replace whites in nations throughout the world. It is being done purposefully with the end objective being a New World Order that embodies one world government.

I suggest to you that is the only logical reason for the immigration policies of Europe (as well as other Continents) and for the illegal alien policies of the United States. We are being replaced to get rid of the “give me liberty or give me death” mentality that goes hand-in-hand with being white (which makes a majority of us individualists) so an oligarchic system of socialism (which always, according to Karl Marx, leads to communism) can be implemented.


© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved