SO WHAT IS THE REAL ISSUE THAT WE ARE FACING?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in Him will I trust.  Surely He shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.  Psalms 91: 2-3 (KJV)

The Lord is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do to me?  The Lord taketh my part with them that help me: therefore shall I see my desire upon them that hate me.  Psalms 118: 6-7 (KJV)

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.  John 3:20 (KJV)

As the old man with the scythe is reaping the last few moments of 2009 and the cute cuddly youngster with the 2010 sash is waiting to enter is a good time to consider where we are and how we got here.  2009, for many people, started with a giddy hope for the blessings of change and has ended; again for many people – not necessarily the same ones – as the worst turmoil our nation has seen.  What went wrong?  Could it be that those who were giddy were placing their trust in the wrong person?  One thing that we do know is that we are awash with conflicts, whether it is the continuation, if not expansion, of the military in our nation's effort to deal with man-made terror – something that many of us call war; the explosive increase of the federal government invasion into our lives and economy – something that many of us call anti-constitutional intrusions; or the pseudo prophetic warnings about the collapse of our global environment – something that many of us call non-scientific political chicanery.    

Conflict has existed amongst mankind since the third chapter of Genesis when Eve ignored God and decided to believe the serpent.  And, it continues to this day for the very same reason.  Man has been able to choose between two authorities, God or himself, and God has always come in second place.  At the moment Eve chose to believe man, all of creation was changed.  Man was changed physically through the onset of disease and the advent of death.  He was changed spiritually by the presence of Total Depravity in every aspect of his being.  He was changed socially because he could no longer live untroubled with his fellow man.  And, he was also changed by having to toil to provide a living sustenance instead of enjoying the free fruits of the Garden. 

But, in the same chapter of the Bible God gave man a promise that He would send a Deliverer who would repair that wall of separation.  We just celebrated the birth of that Deliverer, Who through His shed blood at the cross provides our means of escape and the eventual restoration of God's entire creation, our Blessed Hope.  So, even as I reveal the basis for our nation's despair (recent polling has revealed that over thirty percent of the American people – a new high – believe the terrorists are winning) and increased political bickering, the Blessed Hope overshadows it all with the knowledge that those of us who profess to be followers of the Deliverer know Who will write the final chapter and be the Victor. 

The <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United States was founded upon the principle that all freedom is a gift of God.  That being the case, the encroachment upon any part of that freedom is a moral interference into the lives of those so endowed.  It was this very point that the founding fathers spent excruciating hours debating on how to provide a mechanism for an effective federal government without infringing upon the freedoms of the governed in such a manner that not only would their generation be well served but so would the nation's future generations be protected.  The product of those proceedings was called the Constitution of the United States.  A document constructed atop, and in the spirit, of the esteemed and honored 1776 Declaration of Independence.

The British philosopher and Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton wrote in his 1923 book, 'What I Saw In America', "America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed."  Not only was that document a statement about religious beliefs, it was based on the tenets of the Christian faith.  This was a nation truly brought forth in that the unrelated citizens had traveled thousands of miles in pursuit of their dreams of freedom, liberty and self-determination. Before the founding of the United States, nations had been formed around localized groups of people that shared some form of common ancestry and territory.  But, as Chesterton said, we the people had chosen a creed, a Christian based creed, as the cornerstone for our republic. 

Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence as a unifying statement of the desire and will of his fellow citizens.  Within that 'creed' he set forth the Christian principles, which were at the heart of the beliefs and writings of his fellow founding fathers.  The following words have become the hallmark of his contribution to our founding; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 

In 1776, Congress approved that Declaration of Independence with its 4 direct religious acknowledgments referring to God as the:

• Creator ('All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'),

• Lawgiver ('the laws of nature and nature's God'),
• Judge ('appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world'),
• Protector ('with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence')

While the Declaration of Independence has been our nation's guiding light the Constitution has been the basis for the 'Law of the Land'.  The founding fathers carefully crafted what they thought would be a timeless document whose preamble placed the ultimate power in the hands of 'We the people'.  Following that they very carefully delineated the roles and functions, including both what the federal government can and cannot do, for the three branches of government.  Briefly, the Constitution says:  

• Article one defines and clarifies the legislative power that resided in the legislative branch
• Article two defines and clarifies the office of the president, to include qualifications, succession, pay, powers, limitations, relationship with congress and basis for removal of the president and federal officials.
• Article Three defines and clarifies the powers of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
• Article Four defines and clarifies the relationship between the federal government and amongst the states.
• Article Five defines the manner in which amendments to the Constitution must be ratified.
• Article Six establishes the Constitution and the laws and treaties made according to the Constitution to be the law of the land.
• Article Seven sets forth the manner of ratification before the Constitution could become law.

One must wonder why our nation has lost its semblance of a Constitutional Republic when the Bible, the most profound source of wisdom and principles for living, was used as the basis for designing the articles of our nation's confederation.  Thirty-four percent of the quotations, which were the basis of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, came directly from the Bible.  Another sixty percent of the quotes were from men who were quoting the Bible.  The founding fathers also turned to the Bible to shape our form of government in that Isaiah 33:22 was the basis for our government - For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.  The separation of powers came from Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?  The tax exempt status of the church came from Ezra 7:24 - Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.

Should one expect that when the Bible is rejected as a trusted source of wisdom and living principles that our nation's leaders, and unfortunately also the people, would give a high regard to governing according to our founding documents?  When the Bible falls, all else will follow because where there is no God there can be no freedom, liberty or constitutional law.  When man becomes the ultimate authority, there is no respect for God or fellow man.  One can only think and act on behalf of their own good.

The United States has fallen into a state of affairs not unlike those faced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, when in 1933 with Martin Niemoller he signed the Barmen Declaration, the foundation for the church to oppose the Nazi attempt to force the church to be used as a part of the implementation of the Nazi policy.  While some of the rhetoric may not exactly fit, Americans are being faced with very radical government policies that have the potential to severely restrict many of their freedoms and radically change our form of government from a republic to at least a quasi-oligarchy. 

This erosion of freedoms has been ongoing for many years.  Some would say that the conflict between the government and the church started about two thousand years ago when Christ spoke of rendering unto Caesar his due tribute in chapter 22 of Matthew.  But, it can be traced back at least another one thousand years when God warned Samuel, recorded in 1 Samuel 8, about the conflict they would have with the king they were asking for.  Again, this was promised to be the same issue of leaders not willing to be servants to their one true Master and their subjects.  In the case of the United States, the corruption of the Constitution can be traced back to at least the early part of the twentieth century when Congress surrendered their responsibility for coining money and regulating its value under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to the Federal Reserve.  The examples of such things as the intrusion of the federal government into education, health care, social security and public housing are just a very few cases where the federal government has ignored the original intent of the Constitution.  Again, these are examples of men not willing to be constrained by the oath that they took when they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Some of the more recent examples include the fact that no longer do elected officials consider it a matter of ethics to deviate from the truth.  Hypocrisy has become the accepted mode to talk in one direction and walk in another. One of the most senior Senators readily boasts of his constitutional knowledge by proudly displaying the copy of the Constitution he always carries in his suit.   Yet, his voting record is far from the original intent of that Constitution.  During the most recent debacle, known as the Health Care Bill, no less than two senators vowed that they could not be bought and later accepted 'bribes', supposedly on behalf of their respective states, which changed their votes.  This is an example of a violation of Article 4 of the Constitution by treating states unequally.  We have seen massive pieces of legislation passed where neither the public nor the voting officials had an opportunity to read the contents.  Throughout all of these legislative processes the elected have voted according to their party's preference, or knelt to the party rules, in lieu of voting in the best interests of the nation and those they have sworn to represent.

The most recent national political campaign was conducted on promises of change which would insure transparency in the legislative process by having all proposed legislation on the Internet days before the voting and presidential signing would take place.  Promises were also made that there would be no former lobbyists in the administration and that bi-partisanship would rule the day.  None of these promises have been fulfilled and to the dismay of the administration's supporters it has failed to end the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to increase homosexual rights.

Most recently the nation has seen an increase in the willingness of terrorists to undertake attacks on our people and nation.  There is a principle that when a nation softens its position towards enemy perpetrators that they will become emboldened.  This has been the result of a change that dictates that the United States is not in a state of war while the enemy is still conducting wartime operations, both inside and outside of our nation's borders.  The goal of terrorists is not only limited to destructive activities.  They are also satisfied to win by forcing their enemy to retreat, to give up freedoms and to live in fear.  The United States has accepted a response mode that does not restrict the movement of terrorists but limits the rights of the citizens.  There has been a series of terrorist acts that have brought about restrictions on the traveling public, without any willingness to limit random enforcement of policies in lieu of targeting enforcements most heavily against those who fit the profile of known perpetrators.  Our leadership has chosen to retreat from the fear of supposed libertarians who loudly decry any attempt to focus the limited law enforcement resources on those who have the greatest identity with known architects of destruction.  

The bottom line is that our current mode of governing is not in accord with the oath of office taken by those who swear upon a Bible, or some other book of faith, that they will uphold the Constitution, whose preamble is 'We the people'.  Even though the people are no longer ethically represented, they too often accept that lack of integrity if their district is the recipient of some favored piece of pork, often called a government grant. 

Until we are willing to part with political correctness and accept being the target of reprisals by standing for truth, principle and moral behavior, we will continue to descend with the rest of the nation.  We have to have the courage to die for our beliefs, if that is what we are called to do, and not to cower in fear of being publicly chastised.  Our churches have to tell it like it is.   For example, people must know that abortion is the murdering of infants in the womb.  There is no honest euphemism that will honestly cloud that fact.  Homosexuality is a life style that is abhorred by the God of the universe and again, no 'nice' words like gay will hide that conduct from the judgment of the God of the universe.  We also have to be equally forthright about politicians and politics that advocate such practices.  If there is a political party that actively supports those practices, we have to be prepared to call both the party and their representatives to task for their stance.  We have to be prepared to challenge fellow church members to properly represent the testimony they profess about the god they have chosen. 

The issue is not to follow or reject any political party but to support people and issues based upon their moral qualities and integrity.  We have to understand that the pre-season games are over and that we are now locked in the final game for the life of the Republic, with freedom controlled by the people, property rights constitutionally protected for the benefit of the owner and not subject to loss for governmental convenience, and that the free-enterprise market system encouraged for the well-being of the economy.  All of these principles have been the essential attributes of the Republic that has given more opportunities and lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in the annals of history.  Just the twentieth century experiences of nations ruled by the various modes of oligarchies has proven that those systems are failures that have resulted in the enslaving of the governed and the massive losses of life to their governed citizens.

No longer can the United States maintain its current course with leadership that believes the imposition of political correctness, multi-culturalism and diversity are most worthy cultural goals for the nation.  We have passed the point where the Army Chief of Staff (and all other military leaders) is more concerned about their commands diversity profile than their subordinates military preparedness and trustworthiness.  Any and all programs that stand between an individual's true capability and some fictitious social do-gooder programs have to be terminated in favor of personal excellence and integrity.  There can be no substitute for Americanism and adherence to the official oath of office.

The time has also come that the ideology and political beliefs of those placed by either election or appointment must be considered in light of traditional American values and the promotion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  Those who would advocate and follow the writings and political beliefs of radical proponents for the revolutionary change of our system of government must not be given powers within our government that will permit the promotion of such extremist goals.  Followers of such revolutionaries as Mao, Saul Alinsky, and Hugo Chavez should never be permitted to handle the reins of America's government.   

Ben Franklin was prophetic when he answered a female questioner, 'We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.'  Are you willing to follow godly principles of life and, if necessary, to suffer, even unto death if necessary, so that we can keep the Republic given to us by our Founding Fathers?