By H. Rondel Rumburg
“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”
~ Hosea 8:7
One segment of the population does not like the monuments and symbols of another so they must be allowed to destroy those monuments, eradicate them from history, and create a hostile environment for any who respect them in the name of justice. Others say a few policemen are corrupt so they have the right to kill or cripple all policemen, destroy neighborhoods, rob stores, burn businesses and this is justice. Some say they should not be stuck with unwanted pregnancies so justice demands the termination of unwanted babies. Some say that some men are not proper toward women so all men must have their legal rights of protection under the law removed in the name of justice. Others say they are not being treated correctly so they should be permitted to take away the rights of everyone else in order to provide themselves with justice. Some say others have more material goods than do they so they should have the right to steal or destroy what others have labored to acquire so as to institute justice. Others say they do not have property like someone else, even though they will not work to obtain property, so they should be allowed to loot, rob, burn, and destroy another’s property for justice. Some say people who illegally enter the country should be protected, provided for, be allowed to do criminal acts, even murder in the name of justice. What is happening in cities that hold these ideas of justice? Extreme crime, high murder rates, decline in population, creation of more slums, citizens living in abject fear, antagonism against God and His Word, and the creation of a culture of tyranny. This provides justice for whom? We know they are destroying civilization but what kind of civilization have they ever built? This mindset only destroys! Sowing to the wind will always reap the whirlwind as a judgment from God.
Where did such ideas originate nationally? One place they originated was with President Abraham Lincoln when he made such statements as: “I felt that measures otherwise unconstitutional might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the Nation. Right or Wrong, I assumed this ground and now avow it.” In this statement Lincoln deliberately violated his oath of office by admitting the endorsement of unconstitutional acts. He acknowledged that he publically made this statement in a letter from Washington on April 4, 1864 to A. G. Hodges of Frankfort, Ky. when he wrote, “You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows” and in this letter he made the previous statement. Yes, and he confessed, “I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government – that nation – of which that constitution was the organic law.” Thus he confessed he knew what he was doing and willfully violated his oath.
This is the way this Lincoln Doctrine was born: “Preserve the Constitution by violating it.” He declared that by destroying the Constitution he was upholding it and this is still happening today. The very Constitution that preserves and protects the rights of Southern people to have their monuments and history is now denied them in this attempt to eradicate both by instituting justice through injustice. Lincoln pleaded, “I did understand, however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability imposed upon me the duty of preserving” it. How was it possible for the government to be preserved unchanged by violating the Constitution? A violated Constitution involved the changing of the government. Thus we see that just as the Constitution in Lincoln’s eyes was preserved by violating it; thus he also believed that you enforce the law by disregarding it. Thaddeus Stevens, chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee and a major force in the war, went so far as to say, “There is no longer any Constitution.” That was true in reference to the original intentions of the founders. William Lloyd Garrison, journalist and an abolitionist fanatic said, “This Union is a lie! The American Union is an imposition—a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell! I am for its overthrow! Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have a free and glorious Republic of our own….” He advocated freedom by anarchy!
The remarks of Lincoln, Stevens and Garrison are the same as waiving or suspending law and order. Thus being just by injustice is the new norm. Our present situation was set historically in the Lincoln administration and the doctrine he fomented, “Preserve the Constitution by violating it.” I present unto you Chicago, New York City, Baltimore, Memphis, Atlanta, Washington D.C., Charlottesville, San Francisco, and Los Angeles among many other bastions preserving the Constitution by violating it. Here is the reaping of the whirlwind. Here is the stuff of which anarchy is made.
What does God say, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight” (Isa. 5:20-21). The word “woe” in Hebrew represents God’s preparation for declaring judgment. This text is dealing with those to whom moral values no longer are of concern. These have become morally elite in their own eyes but have become repugnant to God thus His “woe.” This speaks of “Conceited men [who] are condemned, who are so sure that they are right and wise and prudent, that they look down upon others. The point at issue is that these men have the quality they claim only ‘in their own eyes,’ and ‘in their own sight’” [H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah]. In God’s sight “woe unto them” or “they await divine judgment that are wise in their own eyes about what is justice.” These shall reap the whirlwind!