It’s hard to thoroughly judge a head of state just from this image. It might seem harmless enough, but when you add what he did after being elected, you are horrified. Yes, that Adolf Hitler was a real bad leader. Oh, did you think I was talking about someone else? Someone a bit more recent? Someone like, Barack Obama perchance? Some might get upset that I would compare Obama to Hitler. To tell the truth, they are not the same. For instance, one was a ruthless dictator, and the other is trying to be. Still unfair? Think of all the unconstitutional power grabs Obama has made in such a short time.

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd criticized Obama’s appointment of “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch. Such czars include such departments as health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy & climate change. These by law are under the province of the senate, but that hasn’t stopped Obama from making these his own. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances.” These czars account neither to Congress, nor to cabinet officials, but solely to the president.

Another power grab by Obama was his plans to control the Cencus. This has always be a part of the Commerce Department. Obama wants a Commerce Secretary who reports directly to him. To this end, he nominated Republican Senator Judd Gregg for the position. Gregg eventually turned it down. He gave two reasons: one, he disagreed with how Obama forced his stimulus through the congress, and two, his refused to politicize the Cencus by making it a work of the White House.

Obama knows the particular kind of governmental sausage that he is making is difficult to watch being made, so he needs a Republican as a butcher. This way, when the people backlash, he can spread the blame and point to bipartisan efforts. Republicans need to keep the blood off of their hands and almost do the opposite of what Obama does so they are above censure. If Obama walks through the door, Republicans should climb through the window just to be different. If Gregg stayed on, Republicans on the whole can be partially blamed for the calamity that is to come. This method is similar of the way the Soviets recruited spied during the Cold War. They would get someone with access to classified information to perform some small act, then use it to force them to perform worse. If Republicans can be tricked or bribed into working with Obama for the sake of “bipartisanship” they can then be forced into far worse.

There is a simple reason why Obama wants to get his hands on the Cencus. If you control the Cencus, you control the money. Some think if the Cencus is completely scientific, then Obama cannot do anything to alter it, but this is not true. Obama wishes to use an illegal technique favored my minority groups known as “sampling.” You count the number in a small area and multiply. The number isn’t accurate, but considered close enough. How this can be manipulated is obvious. How much and where you sample leverages the outcome. Thus, anything that threatens the genuineness of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for redistricting, it provides the inforamtion by which government spending is determined. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census. Bruce Chapman, former Cencus Director, said "The real issue is who directs the Census, the pros or the pols."

And lets not forget the latest Obama power grab when he basically made himself his own auto czar. When you consider great automotive magnates, what names come to mind? Names like Ford, Shelby, Iacocca, Delorean, … Obama? The White House just fired a private compny’s CEO. Has that sunk in yet? GMs former leader, Waggoner (odd name for a car man), was fired by the Presidnet. I hope that at least he gets his contractually obligated bonuses. Where does it end? Will Obama fire the CEO of McDonalds for contributing to obecity, and thus the health care crisis, which effects the economy? Will Obama oust Sarkozy for not wanting to spend more of the French government’s money on bailout efforts? Will Obama depose pope Benny for his teaching on abortion and homosexuality? It is goes as far as we let him.

People are so dizzy over the Waggoner firing, that they forget the shotgun wedding Obama forced on Chrysler by making them merge with Fiat (look up the verb fiat, and you will laugh at the irony). When the government forces a private business to merge with another, the government has gone too far. When Obama makes GM fade out pickups because they are not green enough, even though they are their best sellers, business choices are being made, not for market reasons, but for political. And I’ve gone too far by calling Obama a dictator? Maybe I shouldn’t have compared him to Hitler. Maybe I should have compared him instead to someone like Charlie Chaplin. What do these two have in common? There is one area in which they are almost similar. Chaplin played the part of a dictator …

The entire field of evolution is false. There was no big bang. Spinning gas can make neither stars nor planets. Lightning strikes on pond scum cannot alter lifeless chemicals in living cells. Everything reproduces after its own kind, and mutations cannot change a species into a different kind. Variation within a species is not evolution, but is consistent with the Creation model. Darwin observed variations between finches, but everything he noted was still a finch. Evolution, whether astro-physical, chemical, or biological, has had no part to play with the existence of the universe, as well as life on earth.

And still, faithless members of the church doubt the Bible and agree with scientists. They have a hybrid of God’s truth and man’s error, and call it theistic evolution. In other words, evolution explains all that exists, but where the science doesn’t work out, God miraculously helped evolution over the hump. What non-sense. Not only is it factually untrue and Scripturally unviable, but it is fatal false doctrine to boot. Let me say that again. Anyone who believes in theistic evolution is lost just as if that person believed in atheistic evolution.

The book of Hebrews says, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (11:3). Whatever is understood here, it is by faith, so look at the beginning of the chapter to see what that involves: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (11:1). The word “substance” in the Greek is hupostasis, and means “foundation.” This is even clear in the English rendering of “substance” (sub means under, stance means to stand). Faith is a foundation upon which one builds his hope in the unseen. What makes up this foundation is evidence. The evidence of Scripture helps build the foundation of our faith (cf. Romans 10:17).

So to understand something by faith is not a blind leap in the dark, nor it is an assumption one feels is right. Faith is not based on some experience that is better felt than told, nor upon something that makes us happy to believe in it. To understand anything by faith is to know it with assurance based upon the evidence. So back to our original text, notice what is understood by faith: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” This is exactly what the Bible says, not only in Genesis, but throughout the Bible, it mentions that God spoke the created order into existence. This is what the faithful know based upon the facts of the Bible. This is in contrast with what does not play a part in the faithful’s understanding or origins. The verse concludes, “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Theistic evolution teaches that things which are seen were indeed made of things which do appear, but God explicitly says it is not that way. In short, faith teaches Special Creation and not theistic evolution. More to the point, faith teaches against theistic evolution.

When one reads a few verses down, one finds, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him” (11:6). It is by faith that one understands that God spoke the universe into existence, just like the Bible says. Equally clear, by faith it is evident that theistic evolution is not only no where taught in Scripture, but is itself a belief that is contrary to the Scripture. In short, those who hold to theistic evolution do not have a Biblical faith. And since without faith it is impossible to please God, then those who hold to theistic evolution are displeasing to God. Such a compromise puts such a disbeliever in the same camp as the atheists, and both await the same condemnation at the Day of Judgment.

Some of you may wonder as you read, “is this religious or is this political?” Like a tasty Reece’s Cup of two great tastes that taste great together, this will be a blend of the spiritual and the mundane. Let me begin by declaring that I am a Christian. My convictions in Jesus Christ are so absolute that it defines who I am. All things, including my politics, are poured through the filter of being New Testamentally appropriate. When I speak of government, it is my religio-political opinion, or maybe even my politico-religious convictions.

Everyone now seems to have thoughts about the economy. Is the stimulus good or bad? Our economy is clear proof that money is fleeting. Jesus taught that treasure on earth can be taken, so spiritual treasure in Heaven is preferable (Matthew 6:19-21). Money sprouts wings and flies away, according to the Wisdom of Solomon (Proverbs 23:5). Trust in God. He can take care of you regardless of the economy or your income, but only if you love and serve Him with all of your heart.

The degree in which one trusts in money is the amount in which one is not trusting in God. Paul affirms as much when he says, “trust not in uncertain riches, but in the Living God” (First Timothy 6:17). If anyone doubts the uncertainty of riches, just turn on your TV.

There are least two problems that I can see that led up to this mess. One is a love of money. Paul’s comments about uncertain riches follow closely after his famous declaration that “the love of money is the root of all evil” (First Timothy 6:10). Notice why – those who have loved money have ruined themselves spiritually and psychologically. We Americans have taken God’s bounty and tried to live in as much opulence as we could not afford. We’ve stuffed out collective mattresses with cash, but now we have to lie in a proverbial bed of straw. Americans loved money, and now we have none. Our treasures on earth have been robbed. We trusted in uncertain rich which have flown away, and now we have neither the physical comforts and security of wealth, nor the spiritual bounty that only comes from trusting in God.

A second reason is close to the first. This country has lost its spiritual moorings, at least since the sequel to the great Teutonic migration, otherwise known as the Second World War. We’ve turned out backs on the glories of God, and followed the evils of Charles Darwin (for the record, I strenuously deny that I am a shaved ape). That was an explosion of vices from the ultimate Pandora’s Box, with everything except for the hope at the end. With racism, existentialism, and Marxism flooding the fruited plain, America left the door open and allowed our spirituality and patriotism to be ransacked and bespoiled. All while we stood as a witness to all this, even shouting out, “Don’t forget to take the family Bible while you’re in there.” The degree to which we are not a Christian nation is what contributes to the ruin of America.