Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner is a founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. After studying at the University of Southern California, International College, Los Angeles, and the University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland (Ph.D.), Beisner taught at Covenant College and Knox Theological Seminary. Minister, teacher and author, Dr. Beisner has served as a Presbyterian elder (PCA and OPC) (see full bio).
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner is a founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. After studying at the University of Southern California, International College, Los Angeles, and the University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland (Ph.D.), Beisner taught at Covenant College and Knox Theological Seminary. Minister, teacher and author, Dr. Beisner has served as a Presbyterian elder (PCA and OPC) (see full bio). These edited excerpts are from his biblical worldview abstract on "Social Justice."
Why does the Bible speak so much of doing justice for the poor? Scripture forbids partiality either in favor of or against the poor (Ex 23:3, 6; Lev 19:15). Yet, it also frequently associates help for the poor with justice (Ps 72:2, 4; 82:3; 140:12; Pr 29:14; 31:9). Why? Because the poor are particularly vulnerable to injustice in ways others aren't… Many Hebrew words translated "poor" often emphasize not material destitution but vulnerability to oppression... We should administer justice for rich and poor alike… but focus on justice for the poor because they are so often victims of injustice… We are to exercise charity, or grace, toward them simply because they are poor.
While justice, then, is never partial to the poor (Ex 23:3), it recognizes that the poor are often vulnerable to injustice. Justice is therefore particularly apt to come to their aid in vindication, justification, or salvation from oppressors (see also Ps 140:12; Pr 29:7, 14; 31:9; Ecc 5:8; Is 3:14; 10:2; 11:4; 32:7; Jer 5:28; 22:16; Eze 18:17; Amos 5:12).
But aren't we supposed to help the poor? Does this make it wrong to try to mitigate inequalities? No. It only makes it wrong to try to do so through force of government. Voluntary efforts are good and do no injustice. The reason for this distinction is that what is voluntary is a matter of grace (charity), not of justice. The Bible clearly teaches that we should "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10) and share with those who are in need (Dt 15:7--11; Eph 4:28).
But what the Bible never does is put responsibility for charity into the hands of the civil government. While it prescribes civil penalties for murder, adultery, theft, and false witness, it never hints at civil penalties for failure to give to the poor. Why? Because God ordained the state to dispense justice, and the church to dispense grace (Jn 1:17)… Granting unearned benefits… is not justice. When the state—the legal monopoly of force—gives benefits to some as "rights," it must take them, by force if necessary, from others. Such a forceful removal violates their rights.
This distinction is fundamental to the gospel. Blurring it undermines the gospel. If care for the needy is made a matter of justice, then grace becomes law. Then, the needy—or those who merely profess to be needy—may claim the benefits of grace as their due justice. They look to the state for enforcement… leading to stultifying effects of wealth redistribution via the coercive power of the state. It blinds the poor to their deepest need: the grace of God through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
When God commands justice, we are to do justice, and the state is to enforce it. When He commands grace, we are to exercise grace. But it is precisely because grace is not justice, and because God ordained the state to enforce justice, but never to enforce grace. Indeed, "forced grace"—the real meaning of Progressive "social justice"—is a contradiction in terms.
Rev. Pierre Bynum
Paul Craig Roberts
At 7pm on Friday 13th we do not have much information about the “terrorist attacks” in Paris other than that Paris is closed down like Boston was after the “Boston Marathon Bombing,” also a suspected false flag event.
Possibly believable evidence will be presented that the Paris attacks were real terrorist attacks. However, what do refugees have to gain from making themselves unwelcome with acts of violence committed against the host country, and where do refugees in France obtain automatic weapons and bombs? Indeed, where would the French themselves obtain them?
The millions of refugees from Washington’s wars who are overrunning Europe are bringing to the forefront of European politics the anti-EU nationalists parties, such as Pegida in Germany, Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, and Marine Le Pen’s National Front Party in France. These anti-EU political parties are also anti-immigrant political parties.
The latest French poll shows that, as a result of the refugees from Washington’s wars, Marine Le Pen has come out on top of the candidates for the next French presidential election.
By supporting for 14 years Washington’s neoconservative wars for US hegemony over the Middle East, establishment European governments eroded their electoral support. European peoples want to be French, German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, British. They do not want their countries to be a diverse Tower of Babel created by millions of refugees from Washington’s wars.
To remain a nationality unto themselves is what Pegida, Farage, and Le Pen offer the voters.
Realizing its vulnerability, it is entirely possible that the French Establishment made a decision to protect its hold on power with a false flag attack that would allow the Establishment to close France’s borders and, thereby, deprive Marine Le Pen of her main political issue.
Some people are so naive and stupid as to think that no government would kill its own citizens. But governments do so all the time. There are an endless number of false flag attacks, such as Operation Gladio. Operation Gladio was a CIA/Italian intelligence operation that relentlessly bombed innocent Italians, such as those waiting in a train station, murdering hundreds, and then blaming the violence on the European communist parties in the post-WW II era in order to block the communists from electoral gains.
A president of Italy revealed the truth about Operation Gladio, and you can read the sordid detail in a number of books and online. The bombings were not done, as was widely reported in the corrupt Western media, by communists. The bombings were done by Italian intelligence aided by the CIA. In one of the Italian investigatory hearings, a member of Italian intelligence said that the sites to be bombed were chosen in order to maximize the deaths of women and children, because these victims were most useful in discrediting the communists.
Considering the Western World’s long tradition of false flag orchestrations, the “terrorist attacks” in Paris could be the most recent manifestation.
"I will not put US boots on the ground in Syria." That was President Obama's unequivocal statement to the American people just two years ago when he first planned to bomb Syria. He has repeated the statement several times, as he has also repeated his promise that he "will not pursue a long air campaign" in Syria and Iraq.
Obama lied. And he lied again. And he lied again today, when it was announced that he was putting US boots on the ground in Syria.
This move encapsulates neocon-occupied Washington's response to foreign policy failure: if an intervention is failing, escalate.
The year-long US bombing campaign to "degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS" has produced little result; the "train and equip" program produced a handful of fighters who immediately were captured by or defected to al-Qaeda and/or ISIS; US airdrops of weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS eight times out of ten, according to University of Oklahoma Syria expert Joshua Landis.
The solution to this failed policy is not to abandon the US regime change plans for Syria and let the Russians take care of the ISIS and al-Qaeda problem for us. No! For this administration the answer is US boots on the ground!
President Obama, according to senior administration officials, will start by infiltrating some 50 special forces troops into parts of Syria controlled by the Kurds and the "Syrian Democratic Forces." These "Syrian Democratic Forces" are a mysterious new group created and marketed by the US administration. They seem as dubious as the similarly US-touted "Khorasan Group" a made-up organization that provided the pretext for the expansion of US bombing to Syria just over a year ago.
According to Obama's new strategy, the US military will be on the ground in Syria fighting alongside Kurdish fighters who are being bombed by America's NATO ally, Turkey. What are these US forces to do when they look overhead and see Turkish fighter jets about to bomb them? Will they shoot down American-made F-16s flown by NATO ally Turkey into Syria? How will the Turks take to the US shooting down its fighters in that case?
And what about Russian bombs falling on Syria? As the US refuses to give the Russian government coordinates for the rebels it considers "moderate," there is little way for the Russians to know which fighting group will contain embedded US special forces. Is this not starting to look really foolish and dangerous?
Last March, Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the Russian military presence in Crimea after a coup overthrew the Ukrainian government with memorable words: "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text."
Yet sending the US military into Syria against the wishes of the sovereign and legal Syrian government is orders of magnitude more illegal than even the Russian presence in Crimea, which was after all the result of a long-standing treaty between Russia and Ukraine.
Just last month at the United Nations, President Obama condemned those "major powers [who] assert themselves in ways that contravene international law." But there is no UN Security Council resolution permitting the United States to conduct military operations in Syria, which means the whole operation is in gross violation of international law.
More importantly, President Obama has today embarked on another hot war in the Middle East with no Congressional declaration, no Congressional authorization, and not even a proper notification. Congress lays down and rolls over, the Constitution in flames.
Remember this when you think of President Obama's new war on Syria:
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet.
If you are a believer, you are probably familiar with the touching story of the prodigal son that Jesus shared. Who do you think the father in the story represents? Jesus’ Father in heaven, of course. Jesus was giving us a picture of His Father, who is also our Father.
In the story, the father was seen running toward his son, who was returning home. (Luke 15:20) Do you realize that God is never described as being in a hurry in the Bible? He is always cool and composed. The only time He is portrayed as being in a hurry is in this story. Though improper in Jewish culture, the father held up his robe and ran. Where was he running to? Why was he in such a hurry?
The father was in a hurry because he had seen his son, who was still a long way from home. He was running toward his son as he could not wait to embrace and kiss his child again.
The father was in a hurry to clothe his son with the best robe. My friend, our Father has put the best robe—the robe of righteousness—on us. In doing so, He has reinstated us as sons of the Most High God, a position which we had lost when Adam fell.
The father was in a hurry to put a ring on his son’s hand. Like the authority that is invested in the signet ring of a rich man’s son, our Father is eager to put back into our hands the authority to invoke His name, so that we can walk in dominion every day.
The father was in a hurry to put sandals on his son’s feet to assure him that he was still his son—only servants went about barefoot. Our Father never wants us to feel like hired servants or outcasts. We are always His sons.
Beloved, if the Father appears to be in a hurry, it is only because He is in a hurry to assure you of your position as His precious child!
WE LIVE EACH DAY IN THE LAND OF THE FREE
BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE
THANK A VETERAN
God bless you and your families and may God continue to bless The United States of America the best hope for FREEDOM in this world.
“YOUR BROTHER IN LIBERTY”
CURTIS MARTIN, CINCINNATI, OHIO
"Life is a gift, FREEDOM is a responsibility”
Rees Howells (1879-1950), born in Wales and a coal miner by age 12, traveled to America in quest of a better life. He met Christians whose vital witness moved him to yield his life to Christ in 1906. Howells and his wife, Lizzie, followed God's call to Southern Africa, where they saw the power and fruit of extraordinary prayer: thousands saved, many healed and years of sustained revival.
Set on a life of intercessory prayer, they were led back to Great Britain to establish the College of Wales and to teach children and adults the principles of prayer and faith they had learned. In 1924, starting with only ten pennies, they trusted God for £millions to build and run the School. Yet Howells is best known today for his students and their bold, faithful stand against Nazi Germany and their day and night intercessions against Hitler and his Nazi Troop movements. These excerpts are from Norman Grubb's biography, Rees Howells: Intercessor:
During the four years previous to the outbreak of World War II… the Lord was changing the burden on Mr. Howells from local concerns, centering on the development of the College, to national and international affairs. "We were led to be responsible to intercede for countries and nations." The Lord was preparing in the company at the College a special instrument of intercession for the coming world crisis.
In March, 1936, Mr. Howells began to see clearly that Hitler was Satan's agent for preventing the gospel going to every creature. As he said later, "In fighting Hitler… we were not up against man, but the devil… For several years Mr. Howells stressed the fact that God must destroy him [Hitler], if the vision of the Gospel to every creature was to be fulfilled…
On the day of the declaration of war, he published the following statement: "The Lord has made known to us that He is going to destroy Hitler and the Nazi regime… which is the Antichrist, and release Germany, the land of the Reformation..." The declaration… sent them more determined than ever to their knees. They were now called… to give their lives over "to fight the battles of the Kingdom, as really as if called to fight on the Western Front." God [gave them] responsibility from which they could never come free, until the enemy that God was dealing with should be destroyed "We may,' he wrote, "have many a set-back before He does… it may be that we, like the Israelites (Jdg 20), will have to cry out to God in our extremity for the help which will certainly come."
Diaries of the daily College meetings reveal, not a fearful, not even chiefly a praying company, but rather… those already on victory ground… such clarity and assurance that theirs was the victory… If we say God was not with them, we may well ask ourselves this question: "Was there anywhere else in the whole of Britain or America or elsewhere among God's people another such company, maybe a hundred strong, who were on their knees day by day, holding fast the victory by faith, while our soldiers across the water were retreating mile by mile, whole countries surrendering, and the enemy within sight of their goal?" Through all the years of the war, the whole College was in prayer every evening from seven o'clock to midnight, with only a brief interval for supper. They never missed a day… in addition to an hour's prayer meeting every morning… very often at midday… and many special periods when every day was given to prayer and fasting (see Norman Grubb, Rees Howells: Intercessor, 1967)
Howell's students closely followed the war news on radio and in print and prayed over every development. They literally fought the war on their knees. Are not such companies of prayer needed to withstand those who threaten the free world's very existence today? Are not we called to be such warriors? And some to lead such a company or companies? Ought we not to read and reread this story and seek God as to our role in the spiritual battle?
This is not a Joke....
Cruz advocates pro-growth policies, especially with regard to energy.
Shortly after his election, Senator Cruz voiced opposition to tax compromises with the left like the so-called “fiscal cliff” tax increase passed just prior to the start of his term. Instead he has unveiled a wholesale revision of the tax code that would represent a major tax cut. His plan would simplify the individual code to a flat-rate ten percent tax while also eliminating the payroll tax and death tax and reducing the anti-growth double-taxation of capital gains. It would also eliminate the corporate income tax, replacing it with a 16 percent tax on business revenue minus allowable investments and other expenses. The plan would promote savings by allowing all Americans to save $25,000 per year tax-free. Though the plan moves the code closer to an efficient, purely consumption-based tax system, one drawback is that it taxes wages twice by retaining an income tax without allowing businesses to exempt wages. Nevertheless, it would represent a major pro-growth reform.
Energy also features heavily in Senator Cruz’s agenda for promoting long-term economic growth. His American Energy Renaissance Act would: approve the Keystone XL pipeline and facilitate further pipeline construction; give states authority over regulating fracking on federal lands; give Congress a role in signing off on regulations from the EPA; open up exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf; end the oil export ban; increase natural gas export permitting; roll back the federal government’s environmental overreach by suspending the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases; and end the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Senator Cruz has led the fight against government intervention in the Internet economy and opposes both the Internet sales tax and the Obama Administration’s effort to impose net neutrality through the FCC. He has also spoken out against the growth of the administrative state, signing onto Senator Marco Rubio’s bill to impose a federal regulatory budget and Senator Rand Paul’s bill to give Congress a voice in the regulatory process.
Cruz has fought to eliminate government-imposed barriers to opportunity.
Senator Cruz sees the priorities of promoting opportunity and limiting government as one and the same. To that end, he has been particularly vocal about the danger that federal overreach might undermine efforts to generate opportunity in areas such as education. That said, his efforts have generally amounted more to criticism of big-government policies or co-sponsorship of sound policies advanced by others than to the development of a cohesive policy agenda of his own.
On K-12 education, Senator Cruz has focused on shifting power from federal Department of Education regulators to states, local school districts, and parents. In the Senate, he has been a vocal critic of Common Core and opposed the Senate’s reauthorization of No Child Left Behind on the grounds that it did not do enough to advance the principle of local control in education. Instead, hevoted in favor of the A-PLUS Act, which would give states the flexibility to opt out of Department of Education mandates without sacrificing their access to federal education funding. Senator Cruz is also the lead cosponsor of Senator Mike Lee’s Enhancing Educational Opportunities for All Act, a bill that would reform Title I funding to allow more low-income students the opportunity to attend private school.
As with K-12 education, Senator Cruz supports promoting choice and competition in higher education. Rather than adopting the left’s approach of continuing and expanding existing subsidies for students that will serve only to drive higher education costs up long-term, Senator Cruz supports ideas like the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act, which would help reduce costs and promote innovation by breaking the accreditation cartel that has entrenched the outdated four-year traditional university model.
When it comes to promoting opportunity through work, Senator Cruz has been critical of President Obama’s rollback of the 1996 welfare reform’s work requirements and has supported proposals to consolidate and cap federal welfare program spending and spread work requirements throughout the welfare system. He has also signed on to efforts to repeal labor regulations such as “prevailing wage” rules that increase the barriers to entry to the labor market
Cruz promotes a robust civil society
Senator Cruz understands that a strong America is built through the fostering of a healthy civil society, not by the constant expansion of government programs. Speaking to group of Christian leaders working to alleviate global poverty, Senator Cruz said, “You need government to support you, not to compete with you.”
From his days as Solicitor General of Texas, when he defended Texas laws protecting the unborn, to his work in the Senate to defend marriage and religious liberty, Senator Cruz has been an outspoken defender of conservative values in his time in public office.
Senator Cruz supports a federal ban on late-term abortions and has fought his own party in the Senate to promote the effort in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood. He has also supported a federal personhood Constitutional amendment to guarantee unborn children the right to life at conception.
Senator Cruz has been an outspoken defender of the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, he supported legislation to guarantee states the right to make their own determinations about the definition of marriage. Since the ruling, he has called for a federal marriage amendment and judicial retention elections and rejected the Supreme Court’s supremacy in deciding the question.
Senator Cruz has authored briefs defending businesses like Hobby Lobby whose religious liberty is threatened by Obama Administration policies like the contraception/abortifacient mandate under Obamacare. He is also a cosponsor of the First Amendment Defense Act, which would outlaw government discrimination against Americans who believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
Cruz places a high priority on fighting the expansion of government
Like many other candidates, Senator Cruz has articulated a firm commitment to limited government principles. He stands out from the field for his willingness to use all available leverage to fight for those principles, even when the battle is uphill.
As Solicitor General for Texas, Senator Cruz sued the federal government to prevent the implementation of the costly Medicare prescription drug benefit. And in the Senate, Senator Cruz led the effort to defund Obamacare in the summer of 2013 with his 21-hour speech on the Senate floor during the debate over the government funding bill. That effort, criticized and undermined by many Republicans, was essential to the cause of eventual repeal, raising public consciousness of the law’s failures and putting to rest the common view among many in Washington that the law’s status was a settled question after President Obama’s re-election.
Senator Cruz’s recognition that co-equal branches of government cannot afford to cede their constitutional prerogatives extends to the role of the president, who he has argued should be willing to veto big-government bills sent to the White House by Congress. Given his record in the Senate, few – even including his detractors – are likely to doubt his willingness to negotiate forcefully with the other branches of government.
What is less clear is that Senator Cruz will bring to such negotiations a detailed set of policy demands. On health care, for example, he has promised full repeal of Obamacare but offered little in the way of alternative policy ideas aside from a proposal to allow cross-state insurance purchases. Pressed on the debate within the conservative movement about how best to reform the tax treatment of insurance, for example, he has been noncommittal, in contrast to other candidates who have offered specific proposals. And on old-age entitlements, he has endorsed premium support for Medicare and praised President Bush’s effort to introduce personal accounts to the Social Security system, but his campaign has done little to flesh out those ideas.
Cruz has been willing to pay a political price for taking on government favoritism
Senator Cruz has been at the center of the highest-profile fight about big-government favoritism in the current Congress: the debate over ending the Export-Import bank. Though Senator Cruz initially voted for the trade bill that served as a bargaining chip for Ex-Im allies to secure reauthorization, he later switched his vote and exposed the backroom deals that had been struck by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, calling him out on the Senate floor for lying to the American people. It cost him political capital in the U.S. Senate, but in doing so, Senator Cruz demonstrated real leadership.
Beyond the Export-Import Bank, Senator Cruz has a strong track record of opposing big-government regulations and other policies that favor the well-connected. During a recent speech about cronyism, Senator Cruz highlighted his opposition to bank bailouts and anti-main-street financial regulations like Dodd-Frank, agribusiness subsidies, and renewable energy boondoggles like the Renewable Fuel Standard and the wind production tax credit. He has also been the leader of the fight in the Senate against the Internet sales tax, a top priority of major Internet retailers seeking to stifle smaller competitors.
Senator Cruz is a strong opponent of amnesty policies that would reward politically favored constituencies for violating U.S. law at the behest of big businesses eager to legalize new sources of cheap labor, even as he advocates for much-needed reforms to legal immigration.
Cruz places a high priority on defending the nation’s security interests
Senator Cruz has laid out a foreign policy agenda firmly within the mainstream of the conservative movement, while distinguishing his perspective from similarly hawkish but more utopian strains of foreign policy on the right.
In Senator Cruz’s view, while the United States should “be a clarion voice for freedom,” “the touchstone of foreign policy should be the vital national security interest of America.” He distinguishes between the sorts of interests for which America might exert some of the means of soft power available to it and the cases in which military intervention should be considered. In the latter cases, he argues, the United States should set out a clearly stated objective tied to U.S. national security, make a commitment to use overwhelming force to achieve that objective, and avoid prolonged commitment to “nation-build” when the war is over. On these grounds, Senator Cruz has been reluctant to support some military engagements favored by hawks – Syria and Libya, for example– while expressing strong support for military engagement if necessary in other theaters, such as Iran.
In some cases, Senator Cruz has refused to break with misguided elements of the foreign policy consensus within his party, as with his willingness to boost spending on defense even without offsetting cuts. But in others, he has offered a bold voice in contrast to party leadership, such as during his aggressive questioning of former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel during his confirmation hearings.
On several recent issues that have divided the conservative movement, Senator Cruz has helped lead the way in promoting innovative solutions that have started as out-of-the-mainstream proposals. For example, though not generally a fierce critic of the government’s efforts to track terrorist activities under the Patriot Act, Senator Cruz recognized that the National Security Agency’s surveillance protocols had over time not properly balanced security interests with civil liberties. Thanks in part to his leadership, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act compromise legislation. On Iran, Senator Cruz bucked the Washington consensus regarding the need to continue the flawed Corker-Cardin nuclear review process and argued that President Obama’s failure to disclose IAEA side-deals had rendered the deal void. Over time, other Republicans including House leadership adopted Cruz’s arguments, strengthening the long-term effort to derail the deal in the next administration.
Have you seen this;
True World Political Authority
Pope Francis 2015
#8. And, “there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”
Spirituality in the New World Order: Is a One World Religious Authority in Formation?
Last September, Israel’s ex-President Shimon Peres asked Pope Francis to head a future “UN of religions”, a proposed organisation with “unquestionable” authority to proclaim God’s will. Peres argued globalising faith under a single world authority is required to combat terrorism. Is this concept, which has major implications, really about peace, or is there a darker agenda behind it?
Pope Francis’s second encyclical, Laudato Si (Be Praised), published in June 2015, is a continuation of the imperialistic message of Evangelii Guadium. In Laudato Si, Francis explores the issues of world poverty and environmental destruction, two very real problems. But it is his solution to these issues that is most telling—and alarming.
In Laudato Si, Francis quotes a dramatic statement from his predecessor, Pope Benedict xvi. “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority .…”
The pope articulates his message well, and his aspirations seem to be noble and selfless. Poverty and environmental degradation are serious problems, and we desperately need a solution. But is the solution the establishment of a “world political authority”?
Can you think of a single instance of a supreme authority ruling with equity, tolerance and justice, for the benefit of every subject?
Given the flawed nature of Western systems, Francis explained, “it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions.” When has such an endeavor produced positive results?
It is important to recognize that the creation of a supreme, all-powerful authority is not simply the pope’s opinion or aspiration—it is a declaration of intent. Francis is actively working for the establishment of a new system of world government.
This is a free booklet online, History of the Roman empire. I would advise discernment on the future prophecy ideas.
Your support keeps freedom alive!