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 chicken littles say we are responsible, and it is bad. It has become the cornerstone of neo-paganism, the religion of the relgionless. Global warming has all the earmarks of a religion, such a belief in a deity, as well as a devil. It preaches sin, both original and actual, along with sinners and salvation, and for those who can afford it, indulgences. It offers salvation to her proselytes and condemnation to her heretics.

The “god” of global warming is Mother Earth. Extreme environmentalists hold the planet earth in reverence, and worship her as a creator. To them, the earth is more than a planet that contains living beings, but it herself a living entity, and a supernal one, at that. What rubbish. Earth is merely mud, stone, and water, with air for the life on it to breathe. The earth is not alive. It does not have moods or personalities, and it is definitely not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Ancient pagans made idols of wood and stone. Now they have left their carving tools at home, and have venerated the whole thing. It is just as foolish now as it was then. Earth is not divine, and it is blasphemy against the true God of Heaven to say so. 

The devil to the ecophiles is capitalism. Global warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth. It has no more to do with the planet than Leninism had to do with workers. It is simply the powerful manipulating the week-minded to keep control over them. To speak of “development” is a sin because it is of the devil, the free market. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said that global warming has turned into a religion that has replaced the ideology of communism and threatens simple human liberties. Mr. Klaus said the rush to diminish greenhouse gases would hurt poorer nations that can't afford modern technology. He compares radical environmentalists to Marxists, and says the Kyoto Protocol requires enormous costs without any determinable measure of advantage.

So if advances in industry are of the devil, then what is the original sin of this pseudo-faith? It is carbon, or to be more specific, carbon dioxide. All life depends on carbon, and everything alive produces or consumes carbon dioxide. What a perfect villain! So anything that produces CO2 is evil. Gaea be thanked, there is a way out. The indulgences sold to cover our sins are the carbon offsets now available to the wealthiest of sinners. At the 1992 Democratic Convention, Al Gore said, "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home. Hypocrisy? Allegedly, no, because the new Pardoners sell carbon offsets, of which Gore purchases to his absolution. Historically, indulgences have diverted efforts from the creation of wealth. Isn’t this the goal of every anti-capitalist? 

And so, the world’s sinners are all people. Humanity is the problem to hardcore environmentalists. The goal of environmentalism is not clean air and water. It is the demolition of civilization. The world and all nonhuman life has its own value, and is not here merely to be consumed by man. Environmentalism is fundamentally anti-human. Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, writes, "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good riddance!'" In a glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): "Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet … . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." The demise of one pine tree or snow owl is an abomination, but the death of billions of people is celebrated.

All religions have their good guys and their bad guys. The good guys to the global warming faithful are her converts. Science is not about making proselytes. It is about gathering evidence and testing theories, not preaching an ideology. Ecology requires devotion rather than intellectual rigor. The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. Science does not seek or need converts. It teaches those that are willing to learn, but it does not impose itself on those who are indifferent. 

The bad guys are the skeptics, true heretics for the climate change faithful. The term “skeptic” has historically been a badge of honor worn by scientists as indicating their commitment to the idea that nothing is beyond question. Now, in climate science, to be labeled a skeptic is to be dismissed as a hack. Being a skeptic concerning global warming today is akin to being a heretic in the Middle Ages – you may not burn at the stake, but your good name will be scorched. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book entitled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester, not and element of some right-wing cabal. Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." Drink the hemlock, Bjorn! Scientists and scholars are refusing to share a platform with him. At Oxford the author of a study on climate change throws a custard pie in his face. There's even a site called www.anti-Lomborg.com. Another heretic is Dr. Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada. He was featured in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this, Ball has received hate mail and death threats.

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system." Similarly, Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." The Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen believes that the American Meteorological Society should strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about global warming. Worst of all is Dave Roberts. On September 19, 2006, he wrote on his online publication, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b******s – some sort of climate Nuremberg." Really? War crimes for scientific heterodoxy? 

There seems to be quite a bit of hue and cry regarding the rights of homosexual persons, particularly, the supposed right to marry. Many innocent yet ignorant people get sucked into this debate, and from an admirable sense of kindness agree homosexual couples should have the legal right to marry. I appreciate the decency that guides this decision, but it ignores what the Bible says, as well as what social scientists clearly know – homosexuality is morally wrong and is a stone to the neck of any society that allows it, much less promotes it.

The Bill of Rights guarantees every American the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, and due process. Also protection from unreasonable search and seizures, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. Homosexuals have always enjoyed all of these rights, and no one is trying to deprive them of such. When homosexuals speak of being denied their rights, they don’t have in mind these constitutionals rights, but those described in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This protects against discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, and national origin.

Constitutional rights restrict the government. When these rights are extended to a group or class from whom they had been denied, it doesn’t deny said rights from those who enjoyed these rights previously. For example, when the right to vote was given to blacks and then women, this did not inhibit the right to vote for white men.

In contrast, civil rights restrict what was a freedom from private entities when it serves a greater national good. For example, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer had the right to refuse to hire someone just because he was black. It clearly serves a national interest to deny this employer of the right to discriminate based on race.

Some argue that homosexual marriage should be sanctioned to provide the rights of marriage to people not married. The benefits supposedly given are available now without the government getting involved in legitimizing homosexual marriages. For example, some say homosexual couples should be allowed to be in state recognized homosexual marriages so one can visit a partner in the hospital. The fact is homosexuals are not denied visitation rights based on sexual preference.

Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of the patient or the visitor. The only situation in which there would be a possibility that the blood relatives of a patient might attempt to exclude the patient's homosexual partner is if the patient is unable to express his or her wishes due to unconsciousness or mental incapacity. Homosexual partners concerned about this possibility can effectively preclude it by granting to one another a health care proxy (the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient) and a power of attorney (the right to make all legal decisions for another person). Homosexual marriages are not necessary for this.

As with the hospital visitation issue, the concern over inheritance rights is something that simply does not require homosexual marriage to resolve it. Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies. An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes simply by writing a will.

It is ironic that activists are now seeking Social Security survivor benefits for homosexual partners, since Congress originally intended these benefits as a way of supporting a very traditional family structure – one in which the husband worked to provide the family's income while the wife stayed home to keep house and raise the children. Social Security survivor benefits were designed to recognize the non-monetary contribution made to a family by the homemaking and child-rearing activities of a wife and mother, and to ensure that a woman and her children would not become destitute if the husband and father were to die.

Very few homosexual couples organize their lives along the lines of such a “traditional” division of labor and roles. They are far more likely to consist of two earners, each of whom can be supported in old age by their own personal Social Security pension. Furthermore, far fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual ones are raising children at all, for the obvious reason that they are incapable of natural reproduction with each other. This, too, reduces the likelihood of a traditional division of labor among them. Homosexual couples want the benefits of a traditional family without offering to society the benefits of such a family.

The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them "discriminatory" as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society, and in fact impose substantial costs on society.

According to moderate U.S. Government statistics, a sparse few are homosexual (2.5% of men, 1.8% of women). And where same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships have been legalized, very few, less than 10%, have sought them out. So, legal homosexual marriage would only suit a small portion of a small portion of people.

Regarding the issue of homosexuality being genetic, consider a couple of arguments. First, one born with black skin always has black skin, and does not go back and forth to white. Reliable government statistics say that less than 1% of homosexuals (0.9% of men, 0.4% of women) have been exclusively homosexual all their lives. Homosexuality cannot be genetic if almost all homosexuals came out of heterosexuality, or as with many, with reparative therapy, leave homosexuality and return to a straight lifestyle. The matter is clearly a choice. Second, if a particular genetic trait, such a green eyes, left one sterile, then it would not take long before green eyes would be bred out of the human race. Since homosexual activity cannot reproduce, and in this case would be comparable to sterility regarding a trait, homosexuality would disappear if it were genetic but had no way of passing that genetic information on. Not only is homosexuality a choice, but it is an evil one, and should not be supported by state sanctioned homosexual marriages. To permit homosexual marriages as standard, accepted, as protected would serve as nothing more than a club to the kneecap of an already limping American social structure.

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.