Speaking Faith

Speaking Faith:    There has been a lot of discussion in recent years about the "Word of Faith Message", or "The Power of Confession", or maybe you've heard the term, "Name it and Claim it!" The question at hand is as to whether it is Biblical to teach that "profession brings possession" is a simple matter of checking the Bible, the Word of God, to see if the scriptures lend credence to this teaching.

An often quoted scripture is Romans 4:17, "(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." Note that God, it says, "makes alive the dead, and calls those things that be not, (are not in existence yet,) as though they were already in existence. This is the essence of what God did in Genesis when He said (in the Hebrew) "Light be!" and, light came into being! Before He said it, light "was not yet", but once He said it, light sprang into being. "Well, yes," you might say, "but, Dr. Bill, that was God!" True! I will give you no argument there! The question becomes then, does God want US to "call those things that be not as though they are?" Let's look at what Jesus taught the disciples in Mark Chapter 11.

"And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." (Mark 11:22-24) Now this is the King James Version, and I know that it can be a little "blind" to us sometimes, so let's look at the same scripture in the "Bible in Basic English" translation, "And Jesus, answering, said to them, Have God's faith. Truly I say to you, Whoever says to this mountain, Be taken up and be put into the sea; and has no doubt in his heart, but has faith that what he says will come about, he will have his desire. For this reason I say to you, Whatever you make a request for in prayer, have faith that it has been given to you, and you will have it." Notice it says, "Have God's faith..." The Greek meaning here can be expressed, "have the God kind of faith," or "use God's kind of faith." Now if Jesus is teaching us that we should actually use God's Faith... which make no mistake, He is saying to do that... then, we should use God's faith in the same way that God uses it.... by speaking! Let's look at the rest of the verse... notice He says, "whoever will say." The promise here is not to EVERYONE, no indeed! ItIS to anyone that will "say!" The qualifier is that you be willing to speak God's Word over the situation! And, note, He is not saying talk ABOUT the situation, He is saying rather to talk TOthe situation, or thing! You must be willing to "say to the mountain" what you want it to do! A lot of people are simply not willing to "say!" They won't speak their faith! But, notice, as Dr. Kenneth E. Hagin has pointed out so many times in teaching about these verses, there are three "sayings," to one "believing!" Once you believe, you have to speak! 2 Corinthians 4:13 makes this clear as well, "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak." We believe, therefore we speak!

Over and over again, the Bible makes it clear that once you believe, you must confess, or speak, the thing that you believe. Even in being saved, we follow the process of believing in our heart, and confessing with our mouth. Notice Romans 10:8-10, "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." The Word is near you, it is in your heart, and in your mouth! You must, it says, "confess with the mouth!" Notice, it is not enough to "think with the mind," you MUST"confess WITH THE MOUTH!" This follows the method that God used, He spoke, and it came to pass! We speak His Word, and it comes to pass! Whether it is in salvation, or, as the Greek makes clear in the translation of this word "salvation" used in this verse, "saved, healed, and made whole spirit, soul, body, financially and socially!" The word used here means all these things! It is literally "wholeness," or "complete restoration!" This Biblical principle of confessing God's Word to bring to pass what is true in the spiritual realm into manifestation in the natural realm is a key Biblical principle!

Speaking the Word brings God's power and authority to bear on a physical problem! Consider the fact that the centurion that Jesus marveled at (because of his faith) understood this principle. Matthew 8:8 says, "The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." Note, that he "was not worthy" because he understood that he had no covenant with God at that time, as he was not of Jewish heritage in the natural, but he understood that Jesus was walking in covenant, and in authority, with God. He said, "Speak the word only... and my servant shall be healed!" Then notice what Jesus said about him in verse 10, "When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." Not even the Israelites of that day, though they DIDhave a covenant with God, had the faith of this centurion! Why? The centurion understood the principle of speaking the Word of God in faith! He understood that there is authority in God's Word! Beyond that, God's Word has the power within itself, to cause the Word to come to pass! This is a direct translation of the scripture in the Greek translated as, "For with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke 1:37) Mary had asked the angel in effect, "How shall I conceive a child since I am a virgin?" The angel responded with the phrase above. Now, "with God all things shall be possible," is certainly true, but reading the King James translation, we dont get the full meaning! In the Greek, the angel was explaining to Mary the "how" of the situation, which is what she originally asked! "God's Word contains the power within itself to cause what it says to come to pass." Because God has spoken that she, as a virgin, would conceive a child, that Word spoken by God, alone, had the power within it, to cause it to become a material reality!

Jesus went on to explain the importance of words on another occasion. In Matthew 12:34-37, He said, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." He said this to the Scribes and Pharisees, who were supposed to be experts in the Word of God, yet He says they were evil. How can they, being evil, speak good things? Notice, He says that one speaks, "out of the treasure of one's heart." The word "treasure" used here, means "deposit." So, out of what you have "deposited" in your heart, or spirit, you will speak out of your mouth! Notice that Jesus says that we will be judged for EVERY "idle word," again, the Greek rendering helps us understand, "every idle, inoperative, non-productive word that we shall speak" is what we will be judged for! We should use words carefully, as we would power tools! You don't haphazardly use a power tool, or you could get seriously hurt! In the same way, you shouldn't misuse, or take for granted, the power of your words!

You might ask, "If words are so powerful, then why aren't they coming to pass instantly all the time?" You might say, "That scared me to death!" But, you don't drop over literally dead! True! Thank God! If so, we would have a lot of dead Christians to bury! No, the Bible teaches that the mouth, or the tongue, "sets in motion the cycle of natural events." It is, therefore, a process! What the Bible says in James 3:6 is, "And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell." The phrase "setteth on fire the course of nature" in the original Greek, translates, "sets in motion the cycle of natural events." Satan therefore, tries to get you to speak contrary to God's Word, and set in motion a chain of natural events, or a cycle, that will lead to destruction. No, you may not die immediately by saying, "That scared me to death!" But, you ARE setting in motion a cycle of events that enforces fear ("scared me") and death in your life! In this way, satan can attempt to shorten your life! He uses the very power of your own words against you! The thoughts and temptations to speak those words of death and fear are the methods satan attempts to use to "set our tongue on fire of hell. Ephesians 6:16 says, "Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." The "fiery darts" are designed to set your mouth against you!

What should we do, then? Whatever we want to come out of our mouth, we should deposit in our heart! Psalms 119:11 says, "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Hide the Word of God in your heart! Store it up there! Joshua 1:8, "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." If you want to be "prosperous," and "have good success," then you should meditate on God's Word! Then, what you have stored in your heart will come out of your mouth... and that word, God's Word, will have the power within itself to cause itself to come to pass!   Reprinted from www.Speakfaith.com

My letter to the White House on permanently ending unemployment

 Bud McElhaney

PO Box 115
Chase Mills, New York 13621

April 12, 2017

Subject:  A new department for the rebuilding of infrastructure, job training, and welfare reduction

Mrs. Ivanka Trump
Special Assistant to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

I have read in the news that you’ve been appointed to a special assistant position in the White House to your father.  I respect that decision on the President’s part, and yours also.  As the father of four grown daughters, I’d have to say that I trust their opinion as much as anyone I know, and would have been delighted had they chosen to be a part of any of my own professional pursuits. Alas, they were not.

Like your father, I too have been a builder and developer.  Albeit, on a smaller scale.  But still, my projects included building a more than a few hundred homes, residential lots, shopping centers, multi-family, hotels, and the land development itself.  I do have at least a grasp of what is involved in construction and infrastructure development.    That background has given me some ideas about a long range plan that your father could begin to implement that would change America and the American labor pool for decades, for the good.

Here’s my idea for your consideration, and if you find it has merit, then perhaps you’d pass it on and at least begin a dialogue.  It’s not something that is an “all or nothing” proposition.  And perhaps some of my specific details could not be used, but I’d like you to at least consider the concept.   My own father used to tell me about advice “eat the chicken, and just throw away the bones”.

The Federal Reserve has announced that they are seeing that it’s time for them to begin reducing their balance sheet.  If they do follow through on this and start letting maturing bonds be repaid, that money will be returned to the Treasury.   

According to my data, the Treasuries that are maturing are broken down something like:
Maturing . . .
within 15 days                  13.2 billion
16 days to 90 days            48.6 billion
90 days to 1 year             163.2 billion
1 year to 5 years               1.24 trillion
over  5 years                     1 trillion

If my numbers are even close to accurate, then there will be coming into the treasury about 200 billion in the next year.   This is money that’s already been “borrowed”.  It’s not budgeted, so it’s not already spent.    

This represents more than enough for the largest single infrastructure program of any administration.   And it would not require any new taxes.

Now, though, the most important aspect of my idea.

Mrs. Trump, you might not be aware but with the United States government already is a massive system of engineers and builders that are not private sector or strictly civil servants.  They have resources, and training, experience, and know-how to build large scale public projects.    They are also spread out over many different areas within the existing military and also scattered across the country already.  In the Army they are called the Corp of Engineers.  In the Navy they are called the Seabees.   I’m not sure about the other branches.  I suspect you do know that the Corp is responsible for hundreds of water reservoirs all over America for their construction, and now management.

I would propose that the administration break out these specialties from their respective military branch and roll into one new branch of the government. I would see it as a cabinet level position.  In a manner of speaking it would be like forming the Department of Homeland Security from many other departments.  In this case it would be to take the Corp of Engineers, and Seabees, (and any others similar in the Marines or Air Force) and put them into a new branch that would still be “military” in discipline and authority and organization.  Except it would be a non-military branch of the government.   If they were not a part of the Army, Navy, Military, they would also be exempt from “posse comitatus” restrictions in the event of national emergency or crisis.

    

I have no idea what this new department would be called.  But for purposes of this letter, and idea, let’s just say it was called Rebuild America Corp  (like the Peace Corp).   I will call it here RAC.  It would be similar to the Roosevelt era WPA or Works Progress Administration.    I would assume in concept it would be easy for the President to get the left side of the aisle on board with something like this, but I would suggest avoiding the WPA comparisons to keep from alienating the right side of the aisle.

This new RAC already has the leadership and expertise in place to do large projects.  They also have knowledge of military training and discipline.   The administration would just be making them much larger.  But it would be most important, in my plan, to maintain the same rigidity of the military style of management and leadership.   And you’ll see why below.

This new RAC would need thousands of new members.    I suspect possibly even a few hundred thousand new members.  And these new members would need to be trained in many cases.   Certainly many could be enlisted for service who were already trained in college.  Perhaps these college grads would come into the RAC at an officer level?   And perhaps there could be a way to tie in a tuition forgiveness for each year of service for a college grad.    In this way, it would offer a graduate the choice of going into the military for Veterans college tuition assistance after service, or go into the RAC and get education that was already obtained, paid for.

There is also an abundance of training facilities already in place but not currently used.   Across the United States are literally hundreds of formerly used National Guard armories.   If you’ve never seen one, they are all basically a large gymnasium and a few offices, and a larger fenced in yard where that particular unit parked their trucks, tanks, and artillery.   Since the end of the cold war, many of the facilities were closed and different units of the National Guard or Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine reserve units were consolidated with others as the general force was reduced.    But it is significant that the facilities to recruit, hire, train, and motivate the new RAC members are already in place.

 

Plus there are a significant number of existing military bases that are either closed or under-utilized that could also be converted to RAC use.   It’s also important, that there are several operating military bases that should be closed, but have not been closed because the congressional representative from that area sits on powerful committees and presents a stiff opposition to closing a base in their home district.   Much of this opposition could be overcome if the “military” base was not closed, but just “reorganized” as a RAC Base.

I would suggest that the RAC perhaps acquire and open at least  one facility in every congressional district in the country.  This would be hard to be opposed by either side of the current congress.   There would be no favoritism.  It would be equally applied.   And by doing it by congressional districts you’d also be placing the most number of  “bases” in the most populated areas.   This would help with training and recruitment.

Unlike the military, the new RAC members would not live 24/7 in the RAC.   The exception might be during a period of basic training where they would go (just as the military does now) for a 2 month boot camp, followed by a 2 to 4 month AIT (Advanced  Individual Training).    In the boot camp, or basic training, they would learn what they name implies: Basic construction information plus military order and discipline.  Prior to enlistment, the new recruit would be tested to see which Basic training they were capable of completing.  This is obviously a large portion of the unemployed population today, who are unemployable because they failed to get a high school education. Or, if they did get a HS education, they did not acquire a reading and math proficiency.  To be frank, these folks would be identified and placed in the lowest rung of the organization.  Their basic training would not be the same as a person who was going to go on and be trained as a supervisor or electrician or plumber.   However, they could also be identified as being eligible for additional literacy training during their service.   The others who did meet the basic literacy proficiency could be moved into the standard basic construction training, and then be tested to see what area of specialty they would go on to after basic training.

Just as in the military and present Corp of Engineers, (and also the TSA), all members would wear government issued uniforms with rank insignia.   This would save the member money on attire and also apply a standardization to appearance and the ex-banker would appear no different to their coworkers than the ex-fry cook.

  

MOST IMPORTANTLY DURING BASIC TRAINING, they would be taught discipline and military style organization.  This is important because they must understand that this isn’t just a free ride, or a “make-work” way to pass the time of day and get a check.  They need to be taught that this is their opportunity out of the poverty lifestyle and neighborhood, or unemployment line.    But, like the military, they are not given unlimited chances and certainly no trophies for “participation”.      During training, and then afterward, they need to understand that they will be given instructions (orders) and a mission.    They can either choose to obey the instructions or not.   But the discipline for not obeying is to be furloughed without pay for a month.    Then they can return.  The next time they would be furloughed for three months.  And then they could return.   But the third time (within a reasonable time period) they would be discharged and ineligible for return (AND MORE IMPORTANT) ineligible for any future unemployment benefits.     

The RAC would basically be telling the member, 

“we have work to do for as long as you want to work here”.    

“If you choose to not work when offered a job, then you’re not going to get paid for not working”.   

I would envision a “term of enlistment” that would be perhaps two years.   You might even tie the term to the amount of training given in the advanced training.  If a person wanted a short term enlistment they would only receive the basic training and be a basic laborer and receive a sustainable wage.  If they did want to learn a valuable trade, then they would have to sign on for a longer term.

For a trained member who served out their two or three or four year term, then an allowance could be made at the end of the term to let them remain on for a period of 3 or 4 months without reenlistment if they wanted to transition back to the private sector.    In no case, could anyone except a basic trained laborer quit without notice.  And if a person did quit without notice, they would be ineligible to return to the corp for some period of time, and still not be able to draw an unemployment benefits.

In effect, unemployment insurance by the federal government would CEASE to exist.   The federal government would be saying to anyone and everyone, that they are the safety net and if you lose your job, or can’t find a job after high school that the Corp has a position open for you.  Workfare would be substituted for welfare.

If individual states chose to still have an unemployment insurance program, that would be at their sole expense.   However, most states that might choose to go on with that, would soon find that they were receiving a massive migration of unemployed people from states which participated in the Corp work program and did not have unemployment compensation.

While a member, they would receive at a minimum, a basic living median range wage. With seniority, advancement and promotion they could rise to what might even be a wage that was equivalent to private sector.  I’m not sure what the starting wage should be, but perhaps in the neighborhood of what a current E3 makes in the military now as a minimum.  Certainly much more than just the subsistence level of unemployment, but they would be working for it and performing a valuable service to the nation and maintaining their own self-respect.    The reason for a higher pay here is because an E1 in the military also gets housing and meals and potentially much more advanced training.    The member would receive free health care, and be able to get benefits for their family members at a reduced and subsidized rate.  (This is actually no additional cost because most of these unemployed are already being paid for by the government via the AFA subsidies.)

Like the military, the member could choose to make a career of the RAC and continue a ladder of achievement and responsibility and rank for 30 years.  In fact, in every way, I would design the benefits and career path to emulate the military, except require 30  years of service instead of only 20.   The military is certainly a harder, and more demanding life choice and should be afforded an earlier retirement opportunity.  

To save redundancy, I would have the retirement of the RAC administered by the Veterans’ Administration since it too, would be an “arm” just like the Coast Guard is presently covered by the VA.

Now, I offer the most dramatic impact of this proposal on the human capital employed.  This new branch would be able to not only get America’s aging infrastructure replaced and carry the country into the second half of this century as a stronger and better country, but it would also guarantee full employment of anyone who wanted a job. It would also make “job-wanters” out of many people who today have decided welfare is an easier path to an income than work.  It would demand accountability on people’s parts and there would be no more welfare except for those who were truly unemployable due to either physical or mental disability.  If a person who was able to work and refused to work, they would have to find someone to live with to pay their bills.   The government would cease providing compensation for lack of production.    

I realize this is a profound idea, but I’d even suggest that the RAC be open to single parent head of households, with children at home and that the RAC would, in addition to the members pay, give the member an additional compensation to pay for 100% of child care for all of his/her children and that number would be reduced starting in the second year to 3 children, and then 2 children in the second year.   This would be telling a person, you can have as many children as you want, but you need to take care of any above 2.

Again, as stated above, the member must be a responsible and disciplined employee during their service, because to be discharged under less than honorable conditions would also be to terminate their child care and government checks.   I can’t imagine that there would be much attitude of “I’m sick and tired of this”, because the alternative would be much worse.

That’s all that I’ve imagined.    I could probably fine tune the ideas if there was any interest at all.   Or, in the alternative, you’re welcome to tailor it to your own way of thinking and adopt the revised idea as your own.  I don’t want credit for the theory.  I’d just like to see the country rebuilt, and the people who want a job to have something that was significant and offered them an opportunity at human self-respect and dignity.    For those who don’t want something better, I’d like to at least demand of them responsibility.

This idea would work.  And it would be VERY hard to be opposed by any Congressman or Congresswoman of either political persuasion.   I believe it would be the single most lasting legacy of the President’s term and would have benefits for your own grandchildren someday, besides making the country better for this generation.   If you have actually read this far, I do thank you for at least giving it your thoughtful consideration.

Very sincerely,

Bud McElhaney
918.991.9317

Ps.  If you do happen to like this idea, or any part of it, I’ve got a dozen more.  J

great truths

Great truths that little children have learned:

1) No matter how hard you try, you can't baptize cats.
2) When your Mom is mad at your Dad, don't let her brush your hair.
3) If your sister hits you, don't hit her back. They always Catch the second person.
4) Never ask your 3-year old brother to hold a tomato.
5) You can't trust dogs to watch your food.
6) Don't sneeze when someone is cutting your hair.
7) Never hold a Dust-Buster and a cat at the same time.
8) You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
9) Don't wear polka-dot underwear under white shorts.
10) The best place to be when you're sad is Grandma's lap.

 Great truths that adults have learned:
1) Raising teenagers is like nailing Jell-O to a tree.
2) Wrinkles don't hurt.
3) Families are like fudge...mostly sweet, with a few nuts.
4) Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
5) Laughing is good exercise. It's like jogging on the inside.
6) Middle age is when you choose your cereal for the fiber, not the toy.
Great truths about growing old:
1) Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
2) Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
3) When you fall down, you wonder what else you can do while you're down there.
4) You're getting old when you get the same sensation from a rocking chair that you once got from a roller coaster. 
5) It's frustrating when you know all the answers but nobody bothers to ask you the questions.
6) Time may be a great healer, but it's a lousy beautician.
7) Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.

The daily 20 year class reunions of Facebook

Keeping Up with the Joneses in Our Friends’ Feed

Two sharp and thought-provoking observations from Kevin Williamson:

Two things are going on here related to American unhappiness: The first is that as our economy becomes less physical and more intellectual, success in life is less like war and more like chess, and extraordinary success in life — i.e., being part of the founding of a successful new company — is a lot like being a grandmaster: It is an avenue that simply is not open to everyone. It requires talents that are not distributed with any sense of fairness and that are not earnable: Hard work is not enough. Peter Thiel is both a successful entrepreneur and a ranked chess master — and these facts are not merely coincidental. You can blame Thiel a little bit for the second factor in American unhappiness: Facebook. Facebook and other social-media communities are a kind of ongoing high-school reunion, the real and unstated purpose of which is to dramatize the socioeconomic gulf between those who have made it in life and those who have not. We simply know more about how our more successful friends and neighbors live than our ancestors knew about John D. Rockefeller, about whom they thought seldom if at all. Our contemporary tycoons have reality shows (some of which blossom into presidencies, oddly enough), but social media is itself a kind of reality show for everybody else.

Of course, Facebook does not present to our friends the way our lives really are. It presents what we choose to share, which in most cases is the best moments, the triumphs, the joy and the humble-brags. It’s not hard to look at Facebook pages and think other people’s lives consist of nothing but good times, happy families, thrilling vacations, adorable children, birthday thanks, spectacular-looking food…

the new electorate. From the perspective of a curious Oregon resident

From an Oregon Resident:

While I was getting a coffee and overheard 7 young people (22-26 years old, 5 males, 2 female) who have been PROTESTING  in downtown Portland the last two nights.

I told them I was doing research and asked nicely if they would answer some questions.  They were cool with it, so I sat down and went for it.

Ø  Three voted.  Of the four who didn't, none was registered to vote.

Ø  None of them researched independently either candidate.

Ø  All were for Hillary but preferred Bernie.

Ø  Why the Democratic Candidate?

·      "More things are taken care of."

·      "Time to have a woman President."

·      "Democrats aren't sexist or racist."


Ø  Six of them live at home.

Ø  All are under their parents insurance.

Ø  Two have "real" jobs.

Ø  Three aren't working, nor are they trying hard to find a job either.

Ø  Parents pay for everything in their life or subsidize it.

Ø  Six get money from mom or dad every month.

Ø  Two have been on unemployment for 6+ months.

Ø  One is at Portland State U, doesn't work, and parents pay for everything.

Ø  None could tell me how our government works ... they didn't know how laws are passed, how the House of Representatives or the Senate work.

Ø  None could explain how a bill is passed.

Ø  Only one could tell me the difference between legal and illegal immigration. One of them said, "Legal immigration is when you immigrate legally."  Seriously?

Ø  None could explain the purpose of the Electoral College or how it works.

In 10 minutes they felt they had explained everything.  Nice kids, but so ignorant.  I know some awesome, phenomenal young adults; but I'm afraid the majority are like these seven.  Too
many participation trophies, too much coddling by parents and teachers.

In 1944 18 year-olds stormed the beach at Normandy into almost certain death.

In 2016 18-year-olds feel unsafe because words hurt their feelings.

some history of expressions

During WWII , U.S. airplanes were armed with belts of bullets which they would shoot during dogfights and on strafing runs. These belts were folded into the wing compartments that fed their machine guns. These belts measure 27 feet and contained hundreds of rounds of bullets. Often times, the pilots would return from their missions having expended all of their bullets on various targets. They would say, “I gave them the whole nine yards,” meaning they used up all of their ammunition.

*********************************

Did you know the saying "God willing and the creek don't rise" was in reference to the Creek Indians and not a body of water? It was written by Benjamin Hawkins in the late 18th century. He was a politician and Indian diplomat. While in the south, Hawkins was requested by the President of the U.S. to return to Washington . In his response, he was said to write, "God willing and the Creek don't rise." Because he capitalized the word "Creek" it is deduced that he was referring to the Creek Indian tribe and not a body of water.

*********************************

In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of George Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are 'limbs,' therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, 'Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg.' (Artists know hands and arms are more difficult to paint.)

******************************

As incredible as it sounds, men and women took baths only twice a year (May and October). Women kept their hair covered, while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs. Wealthy men could afford good wigs made from wool. They couldn't wash the wigs, so to clean them they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell, and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term 'big wig'. Today we often use the term 'here comes the Big Wig' because someone appears to be or is powerful and wealthy.

*********************************

In the late 1700's, many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board folded down from the wall, and was used for dining. The 'head of the household' always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Occasionally a guest, who was usually a man, would be invited to sit in this chair during a meal. To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. They called the one sitting in the chair the 'chair man.' Today in business, we use the expression or title 'Chairman' or 'Chairman of the Board.'

*********************************

Personal hygiene left much room for improvement. As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were
speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told, 'mind your own bee's wax.' Should the woman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term 'crack a smile'. In addition, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt. Therefore, the expression 'losing face.'

*********************************

Ladies wore corsets, which would lace up in the front. A proper and dignified woman, as in 'straight laced' wore a tightly tied lace.

*********************************

Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the 'Ace of Spades.' To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 cards instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't 'playing with a full deck.'

********************************

Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what the people considered important. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs, and bars. They were told to 'go sip some Ale and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times. 'You go sip here' and 'You go sip there.' The two words 'go sip' were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and, thus we have the term 'gossip.'

**********************************

At local taverns, pubs, and bars, people drank from pint and quart-sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in 'pints' and who was drinking in 'quarts,' hence the phrase 'minding your 'P's and Q's'.

**********************************

One more: bet you didn't know this!

In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many freighters carried iron cannons. Those cannons fired round iron cannon balls. It was necessary to keep a good supply near the cannon. However, how to prevent them from rolling about the deck? The best storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one ball on top, resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon.

There was only one problem....how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding or rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate called a 'Monkey' with 16 round indentations. However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make 'Brass Monkeys.' Few landlubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled.

Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would come right off the monkey; Thus, it was quite literally, 'Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.' (All this time, you thought that was an improper expression, didn't you.)

***********************************

Early aircraft's throttles had a ball on the end of it, in order to go full throttle the pilot had to push the throttle all the way
forward into the wall of the instrument panel. Hence "balls to the wall" for going very fast. And now you know, the rest of the story.

********************************* 

The Failed Legacy of Barack Obama

The Failed Legacy of Barack Obama

Like most people, I had hoped for the customary settling down after the very tumultuous and nasty election. We have been denied that, not by the candidates, who have been dignified, but by the outgoing administration. I have written here and elsewhere before that this has been the most incompetent administration since James Buchanan brought on the Civil War, but I had not realized how the immunity to severe criticism afforded President Obama, because of his pigmentation, had been allowed to disguise how inept this administration has been, how authoritarian and sleazy, and how the president’s demiurgic vanity has gone almost unnoticed as the toadies and bootlickers like Tom Friedman and David Remnick went into overdrive.

Only now, when, instead of simply expressing solidarity with his party’s narrowly or even questionably defeated nominee, as Dwight Eisenhower did with Richard Nixon in 1960 and Lyndon Johnson did with Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (and even Bill Clinton slightly managed with Al Gore in 2000), President Obama has disparaged Hillary Clinton. He said the election was “about my legacy,” and that he would have won had he been allowed constitutionally to seek a third term, and for good measure he has incited the inference that the election was determined by unspecified illegal computer-hacking by the Russian government.

The president is correct that the largest issue in the election was the Obama legacy: the 125 percent increase in federal debt while the national work force shrank by 10 percent, the shameful Iran nuclear and sanctions giveaway, the shambles of the “red line” and other flip-flops and miscues all over foreign policy, the haughty disparagement of large sections of the electorate (in which he was almost outdone by Mrs. Clinton), the immigration policy of proudly admitting to the U.S. whomever might be seized by the ambition to enter, and the slavish adherence to the most alarmist versions of the faddish climate apocalypse, whatever the cost in American jobs and the current-account deficit, and without waiting for evidence adequate to justify radical measures.

The president has had a whim of iron, informed by bygone reflexively socialistic pieties, and while he has not been popular and the majority has thought throughout his administration that the fundamental direction of the country was mistaken, about half the people either like him as a public personality or are afraid, because he is not white, to admit that they don’t. He may be, as he often seems, a charming man, but when he has gone and the issue of race is not much involved in assessing his performance, he will be seen to have failed as president, as did, though for somewhat different reasons, and not without some successes, his predecessor, George W. Bush. That is their shared legacy: failure, for four terms.

There has never been such a sequence in the country’s history. Which is why, for the first time in the country’s history, a person who has never held a public office or senior military command took over one of the main parties by winning the primaries and went on to win the election: an unprecedented solution to an unprecedentedly prolonged period of presidential failure. Viewed in this light, President Obama’s shameful attack on Israel last week – in effectively passing a United Nations Security Council resolution laying the entire blame for the impasse in the Middle East on Israeli settlements in the West Bank (which it did not occupy prior to the 1967 War, which the Arabs unleashed and lost) — is quite consistent.

The Obama regime betrayed the forces of democracy in Iran over the rigged 2009 election in that country, preparatory to the surrender to Iran of scores of billions of impounded dollars and a free pass into the nuclear-military club in ten years (if it chooses to wait that long). Obama betrayed Iraq by his petulant departure from that country, which was only tepidly and tardily reversed when ISIS arose out of the ashes of the Obama Iraq policy — an ineffectual about-face that the president, with his customary modesty, informed the country was “in the highest foreign-policy traditions of the United States.” Lend-Lease, the Marshall Plan, Atoms for Peace, Open Skies, the response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the opening to China, the sponsorship of the Camp David Agreement, the treaty removing intermediate ballistic missiles from Europe, the Gulf War coalition to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, the Partnership for Peace in Europe, and the U.S.–India strategic partnership could all be so described, and have been. But Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes left it to others to say so.

Obama betrayed the Syrian moderates who rose against Assad, and the civilians whom Assad gassed (having assumed, correctly, that the Obama red line was an empty threat). The administration lied about the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in Benghazi in 2012, and sent Secretary Clinton out to make her groveling speech of apology to the Muslims of the world. It waffled about Libya, appeased the corrupt Communist regimes of Venezuela and Cuba, and finally crowned the entire farrago of incompetence and betrayal by agreeing that the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem is a settlement in illegally occupied territory, and holding Israel solely responsible for the Arab–Israeli dispute, as if the general Muslim refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (as it was created by the United Nations) had nothing to do with it.

It is also of a piece with the entire foreign-policy career of Secretary of State John Kerry. He entered public life whitewashing the odious and murderous regime of North Vietnam, even as he made false claims to being a war hero, and he exits with his 78-minute pastiche of lies and defamations of Israel at the State Department last week. “Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic,” he said; he must be mad. How anyone can contemplate the horrifying fact that George W. Bush, inept as he largely was (though not in fighting terrorism), almost lost to Al Gore and then to John Kerry, and can reflect on the practical and moral disaster of the Obama Gong Show, and can still be seriously nervous about a Trump presidency escapes my comprehension. In less than three weeks the United States will take off and disarm the self-destructive devices it has been swaddled in for many years. Only a person burdened by a pessimism not of this world could think the State of the Union is about to deteriorate from where President Obama leaves it.

— Conrad Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom, Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, and Flight of the Eagle: The Grand Strategies that Brought America from Colonial Dependence to World Leadership.

Israel and the Idiot Anti-Semite United Nations

Israeli Idiotic 
by Jonas Goldberg at the National Review Dec 30, 2016

There isn’t much new to say about Barack Obama’s United Nations fiasco. I just reread my post from last Friday, right after the news broke and I haven’t heard anything that changes my initial take.

But as Bill Clinton said about his marriage vows, I won’t let that stop me.

Because I have the most Jewy name this side of Shlomo Abromowitz, lots of people think I know a lot about Israel. Sometimes it’s funny. I’ve even had people refer to me as an “expert” on Israel. (It’s devilishly fun to ask them, “Why do you think that?”)

I’m not an expert on Israel. I’ve been to Israel exactly once. I’ve been to France a half dozen times, and even wrote and produced a documentary on Notre Dame Cathedral. Still, I’m not an expert on France either. Yet, almost every day some troll on Twitter or in an e-mail (or snail mail) insinuates that I am, or accuses me of being, obsessed by, or in the employ of, Israel. I write about the place maybe once or twice a year in the normal run of things. My rule of thumb is that if you think I’m obsessed with Israel, it’s because you’re obsessed with Israel and/or The Joooooooz.

But what’s amusing to me is the way some people assume my Goldbergness is what drives me to support Israel. It’s really not the case. I’m with Israel because Israel is in the right and it’s our ally. By no means do I think that Israel is a flawless country. I’m no fan of the politics of the ultra-orthodox crowd in Israel, I find a lot of Israelis rude (at least the ones in New York), and I think the Knesset makes the Galactic Senate of the Republic in Star Wars seem efficient and functional. There are things I like, even love, about it, too. The shawarma is amazing. The women are both tough and beautiful. And, most of all, Israelis persevere.

Still, I find arguments about Israel incredibly tedious. What I mean is my position on Israel is pretty close to my position on, say, Great Britain, Japan, or Australia. It’s a democratic country. It respects the rule of law. It’s a strategic ally. And, that’s sort of about it. It’s not complicated. Yes, yes, Israel’s historic and religious status as the only Jewish homeland and all that has emotional power for me — and a lot of other people.

Also, because I find so many anti-Israeli arguments and politics so fundamentally dishonest, flawed, and — quite often — repugnant, it’s easy to get really worked up on the topic.

But in a very straightforward way, that’s all a distraction. If Britain were somehow surrounded and besieged by existential enemies my position — and I hope America’s position — would be: “We’re with the Brits.” That doesn’t mean we’d automatically send troops or start a war and all that. Those are prudential, tactical, questions to be worked out with our allies, etc. But the principle couldn’t be simpler.

Now, unlike my position, the situation surely is complicated. Israel is surrounded by enemies and a few paper “allies.” I love how Israel’s critics make such a fuss about Israel’s military superiority as if it has nothing to worry about. If you’re walking into a saloon where everybody wants to kill you, you might walk in better armed than everybody else. If Israel loses a single war, it loses everything. America hasn’t been in a war like that since the Revolution. Even if we “lost” WWII, the idea that the Germans or Japanese would or could conquer North America is highly debatable. I would like to think that our culture could stay as free and democratic as Israel’s if we were under constant threat of military annihilation.

Whenever Israel is attacked, her critics bemoan the heavy-handedness of its military responses. Even in the bad cases, I tend to marvel at Israel’s restraint. Israel is a perfect example of how lefties shout “Violence never solves anything!” only when the good guys use violence.

It may seem a trite debating point given how often it’s made, but if Mexicans or Canadians (stop laughing) were launching rockets into our cities for years, while insisting that the U.S. has no right to exist whatsoever, I very much doubt Americans would tolerate anything like the military and political shackles Israel puts on itself. Nor am I sure that it would be a good thing if we did.

The U.N. vs. Israel

One last point regarding the Security Council vote. It needs to be remembered that the U.N. hates Israel because it is in the political interests of member states, particularly Arab states, which use Palestinians as a distraction from their own despotisms, to hate Israel. Think of all the horrors and crimes committed by evil governments around the world. Now think about the fact that from 2006 to 2015 alone the U.N. has condemned Israel 62 times. All of the other nations combined have received 55 condemnations. Iran? Five. The genocidal Sudanese? Zero. Anarchic Somalia? Zero. Saudi Arabia? Zero. Pakistan? Zero. China? Zero. Russia? Zero.

The U.N., more than any other player save the Palestinian leadership itself, is responsible for the horrible plight of the Palestinians because it is in its institutional interest to keep the issue alive. After World War II, there were untold millions of refugees all around the world; they all found homes and settled down — except for the Palestinians.

The Global God State

So I’m working on this book. More on that later. But yesterday I was writing about an argument Steve Hayward shared with me. In the 18th century, liberals — Locke, the Founders, etc. — finally overthrew the Divine Right of Kings. Then in the 19th century, the progressives — borrowing from Hegel — established the Divine Right of the State to replace the Divine Right of Kings. (Hegel, recall, argued that “the State is the Divine idea as it exists on earth”). As I’ve written many, many times, psychologically for many progressives the State plays the role they think God would play if God existed.

Anyway, we can return to all that another time.

But the reason I bring this up is that I think, for a lot of people, the U.N. occupies a similar place in their brains. Some people just love the idea of the U.N. so much they are blind to the reality of it. For reasons that have always baffled me, the promise of a “Parliament of Man” — an explicitly utopian concept — is just incredibly seductive for some people. So they invest in the U.N. magical properties that are utterly absent from Turtle Bay.

Yes, the U.N. does some good things. But the assumption that, if the United Nations didn’t exist, those good things wouldn’t get done is ridiculous. It’s like saying that if government didn’t pick up your garbage, garbage would never get collected. Meanwhile, the U.N. does all manner of terrible things, that wouldn’t be done if it didn’t exist.

Given how much I roll my eyes after someone tells me that the U.N. voted on this or that, I sometimes worry that I’ll have to blindly crawl around the floor looking for my eyeballs because they’ll roll right out of my head. The only criteria for membership in the U.N. is existence. This is literally the lowest standard possible. More to the point, a great many of the countries that vote in both the General Assembly and the Security Council are what social scientists call “crappy dictatorships.” So when, say, North Korea casts its vote, it has all the moral force of a wet fart as far as I’m concerned. Here’s how I put it 14 years ago in a G-File:

I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who've tried to use the fact that the U.N. voted on something as proof that the U.N. is right. College kids will shriek the word as if it drips with self-evident authority: “It voted against the United States!” “Don't you understand? It voted!”

Well, voting, in and of itself, has as much to do with democracy as disrobing has to do with sex. Both are often necessary, neither are ever sufficient.

I always think of “the Commission” when I want to illustrate this point. That’s what the Mafia called its confabs of the major mob families. Think of that scene in The Godfather where Don Corleone arranges for the return of Michael from Sicily (and subsequently realizes that all along it was Barzini, not that pimp Barzini, who outfoxed Santino). The Commission was democratic. It took votes on where and when to install drug dealers, bribe judges, and exterminate cops. Now, just because it took a vote, does that make its decisions any more noble or just? Well, the U.N. is a forum for tyrants and dictators who check the returns on their Swiss bank accounts — and not the needs or voices of their own people — for guidance on how to vote. The fact that Robert Mugabe, Bashar Assad, Kim Jong-Il, Hassan al-Bashir, Fidel Castro, et al., condemn the United States from time to time is a badge of honor. And the fact that we, and other decent peoples, feel the need to curry their favor and approval is a badge of shame.

It’s kind of funny. We’ve spent the last six weeks hearing how eeeeeeevill the Electoral College is because it represents the votes of states — American states — rather than the popular vote. “White supremacy! Eeek!” and all that nonsense. But a great many of the same people have no problem with a U.N. Security Council vote that currently includes the governments of China, Russia, Egypt, and Senegal. I’ll confess to not knowing too much about Senegal’s commitment to democracy (I know, you’re shocked. If only I had a Senegalese name . . .), so let’s put them aside. But please don’t expect me to keep a straight face when you try to tell me that the Electoral College is undemocratic but the votes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Abdel al-Sisi, and Nicolás Maduro are authentic representations of the people.

Indeed, the very structure of the U.N. Security Council with the Great Powers getting permanent seats and veto power is nothing more than the institutionalization of the concept that might makes right. I’m open to the argument that, as a matter of realpolitik, this arrangement is necessary. But by definition realpolitik is statecraft minus morality or idealism.

Keith Ellison for head of the DNC Democratic National Covention Chairman

Keith Ellison’s Bad Week

You know Keith Ellison, Minnesota congressman and aspiring DNC Chair, has had a bad week when yesterday’s news about his imam’s views on homosexuality is the third or fourth worst bit of news for him in the past day.

Admittedly, they’re tough to rank. Probably atop the list is the Anti-Defamation League statement declaring Ellison unacceptable as the head of the Democratic party:

When Rep. Ellison’s candidacy to be chair of the Democratic National Committee was first reported, ADL did not rush to judgment. Instead, we took a hard look at the totality of his record on key issues on our agenda. We spoke to numerous leaders in the community and to Mr. Ellison himself. ADL’s subsequent statement on his candidacy appreciated his contrition on some matters, acknowledged areas of commonality but clearly expressed real concern where Rep. Ellison held divergent policy views, particularly related to Israel’s security.

New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel. In a speech recorded in 2010 to a group of supporters, Rep. Ellison is heard suggesting that American foreign policy in the Middle East is driven by Israel, saying: “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.”

Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying. His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests. Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S.

Ellison says his remarks were “selectively edited and taken out of context.”

Then there’s the Free Beacon, finding unsavory details of Ellison’s 2008 trip to Saudi Arabia:

Ellison, now a leading candidate to head the Democratic National Committee, was brought to Saudi Arabia for a two-week trip by the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood to act as its “overt arm” in the United States.

Details of Ellison’s religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia are scarce, but photographs discovered by the Washington Free Beacon show that Ellison met with controversial figures during the trip.

A photo album of Ellison’s hajj trip posted by MAS’s Minnesota chapter includes a picture of the congressman meeting with Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, who was vice president of a Muslim Brotherhood-created group that in 2004 issued a fatwa urging “jihad” against U.S. troops in Iraq and supported the Palestinians’ Second Intifada against Israel.

Then there’s Tim Ryan, unsuccessful challenger to Nancy Pelosi, declaring that the next Democratic National Committee chair has to treat the job as a full-time job, a fairly commonsense perspective that would either eliminate Ellison as an option or require him to resign from the House.

Ellison is also sure to face questions about his younger years as a member of the Nation of Islam and defender of Louis Farrakhan for a decade. Ellison renounced his membership in 2006. Ellison’s imam, Makram El-Amin, is also a former member of the Nation of Islam. El-Amin’s father was a minister in the Nation of Islam and a bodyguard for Elijah Mohammad, the founder.

Divine fusion and having God's DNA

 

A divine fusion takes place when Holy Spirit meets your human spirit. Understanding the new creation reality is so vital to an overcoming Christian life. If you don't know who you really are, you can never experience the fullness of abundant life in Christ.

We've heard it preached our entire Christian lives, "You are a new creation! Old things have passed away and all things have become new!" But do we really understand what this means? When we come to Christ, does God just make us better versions of ourselves? Or does something much more profound happen?

A Divine Fusion Takes Place

Recently God gave me a vision of what happens to us at salvation and it radically altered the way I see myself. I saw the moment God encountered Mary in Luke 1:31-35 telling her she would bear the Christ Child. I saw the person of the Holy Spirit overshadow her. I saw Mary's DNA and the Holy Spirit's DNA. I saw them intertwine and become one, creating Jesus in her womb, fully God and fully man.

Then the vision shifted to me. I saw myself at salvation. I saw the Holy Spirit overshadow me and fill me. My body became the temple of the Holy Spirit. I also saw my spirit man's DNA and the Holy Spirit's DNA. I saw them intertwine and become one.

I saw the Holy Spirit wrap around my human spirit like two DNA strands coming together as one, just like when the DNA from a father and mother mix together to form a new baby. It looked like the Double Helix. As the Holy Spirit wrapped around my human spirit, they fused together, becoming one and forming a brand new creation. This fusion of Holy Spirit and my human spirit formed Christ in me!

Heavenly DNA—Divine Nature

1 Corinthians 6:17 declares, "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him" (MEV). This revelation was in Scripture the whole time! I became one spirit with the Holy Spirit and I now have a new holy, divine nature.

This is Christ in me, the hope of glory (Col 1:27, 2 Pet 1:4).

Divine DNA from God was fused into my human spirit causing me to become a partaker of God's divine nature! I was truly a brand new creation. As Holy Spirit became one with my human spirit, I was "born again" and Christ was formed inside of me. I was much more than a better version of myself. I was something brand new!

When you receive Christ as your Savior and the Holy Spirit takes up residence inside of you, He actually fuses Himself together with your spirit. You become one with God! You have His divine nature inside of you. You are a brand new creation, with new desires and a new life. Your core identity is completely transformed. Christ's very nature and identity is now completely formed in your spirit. It's a glorious transformation! This is why you are holy, righteous and clean!

I have so much more to teach you on this amazing subject. I have just put together a teaching series called Divine DNA—New Creation Reality. I think it's one of the most important teachings I have ever done. Having divine DNA in your spirit has so many effects on your life as you become transformed in your spirit, soul and body.

I encourage you with all my heart to sow this teaching into your mind and heart today and learn who you really are! Once you know who you are, the devil will never be able to lie to you again and you will walk in power, victory and freedom. 

 

Matt Sorger, author, prophetic messenger, revivalist, healing evangelist, teacher, television host and philanthropist has served in full-time ministry for over 23 years spanning over 200 nations of the Earth through travel and media ministry. He hosts a weekly teaching program titled Power for Life. Matt moves in a unique anointing that fills entire rooms with the tangible glory of God with many healed, set free and empowered. He teaches believers how to live a life saturated with the glory of God and brings a great balance between authentic, supernatural encounter and solid biblical truth. He reaches cities and regions by partnering with and impacting local churches to see a great breakthrough of the Holy Spirit.