Category Archives: Constitution

Greece – The Canary in the Coal Mine

By now, just about everyone is aware that Greece has issues. But what’s a bit appalling is how little we know about what is really happening with that country. The knowledge most people have boiled down to two points; Greece has run out of money and the people there are rioting in the streets. However if one digs a little deeper, you’ll realize that Greece is essentially no longer a sovereign country – it is a country led by a technocrat and more or less owned by the EU and ECB. Before I get into the implications of what that means, let’s first go through the brief history of how Greece got to where it is today.

Between 1999 and 2008, Greece’s real GDP was hovering between 3-4% while their debt percentage hovered in and around 100% until 2008 where it stood at 113% during the global recession. In 2009, the newly elected Prime Minister George Papandreou came into office and soon after revises the country’s budget projections, indicating the government had been understating its deficit for years. That year Greece’s debt percentage shot to 129% and is currently standing at 173% projected. After several credit downgrades in 2009 and 2010, Papandreou agrees to implement harsh austerity measures in exchange for $152 billion in loans from the European Union and the IMF. Riots ensue as the Greek population does not want to give up anything. Despite Greece meeting the austerity requirements of 2010, credit ratings continue to be downgraded so Greece pushes through another set of highly unpopular austerity measures June 2011 to qualify for a second bailout package for $157 billion in loans. Shortly after this, the Greek parliament agrees to new highly unpopular taxes, cutting public sector jobs, decreasing public sector wages, decreasing pensions for high-income workers and scaling back collective bargaining rights.

In addition to this very brief recent history, it is also important to note how Greece got to this point in the first place. Ironically, it began 30 years ago Papandreou’s father Andreas began building an unsustainable civil service in order to continue winning elections. Additionally, Greece had spent the last few decades erecting social safety nets producing cradle to grave benefits such as government healthcare, a generous welfare system and a retirement age of 61, (social security). In fact, the entitlement mentality is so firmly entrenched in Greek society, the population there does not understand anything else and seems perfectly willing to give up its’ national sovereignty while devolving into a cesspool of pain and misery grasping at the last reed it can find while drowning. And because they have no basis for understanding true freedom and liberty, they are willing to live through the degradation of their country in the hopes that things might magically get better. Here are a few of the things that are going on in Greece that are getting very little press in the US.

  • After the collapse of the socialist party in November 2011, an interim prime minister, Lucas Papademos was sworn in to lead Greece through the economic crisis. Papademos is a technocrat and was previously vice president of the European Central Bank. (Could you imagine Ben Bernanke being sworn in as interim President?)
  • Having lost its fiscal independence, Greece is now required have the permanent presence of a Eurogroup Task Force with strong onsite monitoring capabilities. (In other words, it’s their money and they have the right to manage their money. Who owns the bulk of the US debt?)
  • This EU presence will ensure that state revenues will flow into a segregated escrow account for state revenues.
  • The Greek constitution will be amended to ensure that priority will be given to serving debt payments. This includes the right for European banks to seize Greece’s gold reserves, 111.6 tons.
  • Public sector salary cuts are so deep and because they are retroactive to November 2011, up to 64,000 workers will have to work without salary for a month and some may even be asked to return money.

There is far more to the Grecian condition than what I can post in this blog but the point is obvious. Greece’s socialistic experiment has been a complete and utter failure and from a practical perspective, they are no longer a sovereign country. And despite all of this, Greece is virtually assured to default anyway, only now with zero gold reserves.

Socially, the Greeks are feeling completely hopeless and are turning bitter towards the EU and specifically Germany. There are riots and lootings in the streets. Well dressed Greeks have been reported rummaging through the garbage for food. Clinics that were set up to service the immigration population in Greece have seen a 22% jump in the domestic population. And still, they’re clinging on to an idea that didn’t work – hoping against hope that it will all just go away

Understanding what is happening in Greece is essential when looking at our current economic situation. From a GDP perspective, the US is in a worse economic condition than Greece but we have the ability to print money. However, eventually every country will have to pay back the debt that they owe and Greece gives us a better understanding of what can happen when we fail to make the tough choices today. We cannot afford our current social programs and Obamacare begins to hit its stride in full in 2013. That means higher taxes and still more debt. Despite what’s lacking in our current healthcare system, Obamacare literally means the destruction of economy.

We have an opportunity this year to elect real leaders that will face our issues head-on. We need to repeal the healthcare bill and we need to seriously manage the scaling back of all of our social programs – social security, Medicare, food stamps, etc. We either face up to our issues with honesty and determination, or we will wake up one day and realize our country isn’t even ours anymore.


A New Script for the Talking Heads This Week

“Santorum says he doesn’t believe in separation of church and state,” blared the headline in Sunday’s Yahoo News. Santorum seems to have a penchant for making statements that drive the left-wing media nuts. His latest, according to Yahoo was, “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” made during a campaign speech in Michigan last week. While his ability to send the left-wing media into hysterics should be celebrated by conservatives, unfortunately conservatives, independents and rank and file Republicans alike, who are not familiar with American History, are likely to be turned off by Santorum’s statement. The lack of knowledge concerning our own history by a majority of the American people is what is appalling, not Santorum’s statement.

The term “Black Regiment”, used during the Revolutionary War did not refer to the black soldiers who fought in the War for Independence. Instead, it referred to the large number of Christian Pastors who served in the Continental Army, not as chaplains, but as combat soldiers and officers. They were called the black regiment because of the black robes they customarily wore in the pulpit when preaching. It was not unusual for all the able-bodied men in a church to follow their Pastor’s lead in joining either the local militia or the army. Entire congregations often showed up at the recruiting office as a group and fought as a group in battle.

The First Amendment was never meant to protect citizens from incidental exposure to the religious view of their fellow Americans. In fact, for over a hundred and fifty years after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, our Christian heritage was openly celebrated in practically all American institutions, schools, courts, government assemblies, and public gatherings of all types. Virtually all senior citizens of today who grew up in America can remember starting every school day with a morning devotional, led by the teacher. Why, we even said the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. That “wall of separation” found in the First Amendment and alluded to by Thomas Jefferson in the famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 was not a wall intended to keep out the influence of Christianity or religion in our public policies. It was intended to keep the national government from meddling in the religious affairs of the people.

It was not until the 1960s that the Supreme Court suddenly discovered new meaning in the First Amendment phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, that had never been noticed by any of their predecessors in the 175 year history of the court. The court deliberately ignored the second phrase in the clause, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. In doing so, the court inadvertently or intentionally created the conditions guaranteeing exactly what the first phrase prohibited, the establishment of a national religion. In officially disconnecting the American culture from its Christian heritage, they created a vacuum that was quickly filled with another religious structure more compatible with the changing American mindset. Secular Humanism became the established religion of America.

Since that time, the courts have consistently ruled and legislators have routinely passed laws supporting the doctrines of secular humanism, America’s new established religion. Court rulings and laws supporting environmentalism, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc., etc., are all based on the doctrines of secular humanism. This shift away from the traditional American values embodied in our Christian heritage is rapidly leading to the destruction of our culture, our political system and our economic well-being. The eradication of Christian values is essential to the acceptance by our citizens of the socialist system envisioned by America’s new “ruling class”. Christianity is incompatible with socialism; On the other hand, secular humanism supports and even encourages socialist policies.

While the media will have a field day with Santorum’s statement in the coming week, patriots who understand America’s history and heritage should applaud him for his courage in standing firm on his and America’s traditional values. A politician who is willing to compromise his or her core principles in order to win an election is not worthy of the office they seek. One of the questions all Americans have to answer in the coming elections is do we prefer a leader who stands by and defends his principles or do we prefer candidates who have no principles? The future of America may stand or fall on the answer voters give to this question.

Who’s Defending the Constitution? Part Two

In part one of “Who’s Defending the Constitution” we discussed numerous examples of attacks on the Constitution at all levels of government, the media, universities, etc… I received several more examples via e-mail and Facebook from readers of the post so now the question is, why the public disdain from so many of our “leaders” in the government, school and the media? We’ll discuss a theory regarding  the constant barrage of attacks in a future post but for now, let’s go over why the constitution has become so easy for the left to knock around.

To begin with, so few people know the contents of the Constitution or the true history surrounding the writing of it. If it is taught in public education at all it is taught as this is the way our government is built, three branches, memorize that and move on. And that’s about all that people really know about the constitution. We have one and it was written a really long time ago. It means absolutely nothing to anyone without the context in which it was written. In fact, since it’s not really possible to understand the Constitution without understanding the true history of the times and the Declaration of Independence, I would suggest that it would be almost impossible to teach correctly in a public school system. It is not possible to teach the understanding of the Constitution without the subject of God entering into the conversation. And in these times, that would almost certainly land in the Judicial Branch of the government. Imagine this in a public education classroom:

  • Our Rights are unalienable and come from God.
  • The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights.
  • Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent.
  • Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.

And this segues straight into another reason why the Constitution is losing its’ prominence among our nation and the rest of the world. In the 1962 Engle vs. Vitale case and the 1963 Abington School District vs. Schempp cases, the Supreme Court ruled against school prayer and school sponsored religious activities. This essentially started the highway we’re on now, where every court case is ruled in such a way that it is freed from religion as opposed to the originally intended freedom of religion as stated in our founding documents. The result has been tragic. We are at the point now where we cannot express our religious freedoms on government properly for fear of a lawsuit from the minority of people who believe in no God whatsoever. So the foundational principals of our Constitutional Republic have been ripped out from under us. The Judeo-Christian values and the Ten Commandments. Without a firm understanding of these from the branches of governments that are supposed to protect them, the Constitution is just another “form of government document”.

So now we have multiple generations of people who see their rights coming from the government – not God. And we cannot in reality even teach the fact the sole purpose of government is to protect our God-given rights in a public school. Hence the extreme frustration our country has with our government and its’ inability to take “care” of us in a way that they see fit. This is why we continue to hear cries for democracy despite the fact that democracy is never mentioned in the constitution. And I contend it is a major factor why the increasing power of the executive branch is not just overlooked, but encouraged. (More on that in the future.)

I strongly encourage anyone that is reading this post to understand and study our founding documents and the history surrounding them. One of the purposes of Christian Patriots USA is to have a firm understanding of these and encourage and teach them in every way we can. We believe it is just as critical that we are able to reach and teach our children so that have a proper understanding of what the roles of the government are and what their roles and responsibilities are to keep what our Founding Fathers had intended.

Obama Giving America the “Bird”

In the midst of the Revolutionary War, Congress set up a committee to design a seal for the United States of America. The design they finally settled on and adopted by an act of Congress, June 20, 1782, included the Bald Eagle as our National Bird. The Society of the Cincinnati, An organization of Army officers in the Revolutionary War incorporated a crudely drawn Eagle into the symbol for its organization. To some, including Benjamin Franklin, the drawing resembled a turkey more so than an Eagle, prompting Franklin to comment to his daughter Sally, in a letter of January 26, 1784, his doubts about the choice.

“For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labor of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.

“With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country…

“I am on this account not displeased that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth is, the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America… He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.”

Over two hundred years later, when reviewing the history of America in the context of the socialist policies adopted by our government over the past several generations, especially those promulgated by the Obama administration, it appears the Founders may have been prescient in their choice. Certainly the character of the eagle, as described by Franklin is more symbolic of a great number of the American people today than those of the Revolutionary War era. However, in place of the Turkey as suggested by Franklin, I would like to nominate the Ostrich as our national bird. I realize that the myth of an Ostrich burying his head in the sand when confronted with danger is based on fiction and not fact, but the image is an accurate description of a large segment of the American people.

During the 2008 election season, Barack Obama clearly communicated his socialist intentions to the American people who were paying attention. He was considered the “great orator” of the twenty-first century by many. Although he spoke in platitudes and clichés of “hope and change”, he made little effort to hide his intentions from the American people. The socialists among us understood his message and enthusiastically supported his candidacy. With the exception of a few Americans with some understanding of Constitutional government and history, many Americans “hid their heads in the sand”, figuratively speaking. Those who raised their voices in warning of Obama’s intentions were ridiculed and condemned as “conspiracy freaks” and “right-wing fanatics”. Their critics assured themselves and us that “those things could never happen in America” because of our Constitution and besides, “The American People would never stand for it.”

Three years later, we have socialism and new socialist policies forced upon us on an almost daily basis and still, the American Media and many conservative leaders refuse to take their heads out of the sand and look around at what is happening to the country.

Over the past three years, we have been tracking the governing style of Obama and comparing it with that of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela prior to his suspending elections and becoming Venezuela’s dictator President as he is today. It is evident for those who are paying attention that Obama is following Chavez’s pattern.

The most recent example of this fact is Obama’s “we can’t wait” initiative. By that he means that when Congress refuses to rubber stamp his socialist policies, he will ignore Congress and accomplish his goals through the bureaucratic system set up in the Executive Branch. Yesterday, Obama again clearly stated his intentions in a speech given at the Eisenhower Executive Building in Washington, and quoted in CNS news, Obama said;

“When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act,” Obama said on Tuesday, with Vice President Joe Biden at his side. “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”

Speaking to and about the “middle class” Obama said that, “With or without Congress, I’m going to continue to fight for them. These are the words of a would-be despot, not those of an American President who recognizes the constraints placed on him by the Constitution. The very first sentence in the body of the Constitution says. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” For political reasons, Progressive Congresses have abdicated this power, willingly giving it to the Executive and Judicial Branches by establishing bureaucratic departments and delegating to them legislative powers not sanctioned by the Constitution.

The progressive (American socialist) Democratic Party now routinely uses the Federal Court System and the Bureaucratic systems in the Executive Branch to circumvent the wishes of the people and the Congress. These departments and their tyrannical actions are further isolated from Congress and the American people by being placed under the direction of Czars, (the Administration’s term, not mine), unaccountable to Congress and untouchable by the electoral process. The weak response of the media to yesterday’s speech by Obama and the ho-hum attitude of the American people serve as ample reasons to change out national symbol from the Bald Eagle to the mighty Ostrich.

More Obama Lawlessness

In our previous article, we pointed out the unlawful actions of President Obama in his use of recess appointments. Two other unconstitutional practices of modern Presidents are the misuse of “signing statements” and “Executive Orders”, and Obama has abused this practice more so than any of our previous Presidents.

Signing Statements

In an era of multi-thousands page “comprehensive legislation” and “omnibus spending bills”, laden with irrelevant amendments that plunder our treasury and expand the control of government over our lives, Presidents started using Signing Statements to express their disapproval of segments of the legislation. Occasionally they will express in the statement their intention to not enforce certain portions of the bill because they either believe them to be unconstitutional or bad policy.

The Constitution is quite clear as to the duty of the President in respect to his approval or disapproval of legislation passed by Congress.

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.” (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Para. 2)

A primary responsibility of the President is to defend the Constitution. When a President signs a bill he believes to be unconstitutional or contains amendments that are unconstitutional, he is not fulfilling that responsibility. The same is true if he allows the bill to become law by neglecting to sign it for a period of ten days. If a Signing Statement by the President indicates that he believes any part of the bill to be unconstitutional or that certain requirements of the bill are bad policy, therefore he does not intend to enforce those he disagrees with, he is confessing to an intention to commit an impeachable act. Article II, Section 3 requires of the President that … “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

A bedrock principle of a constitutional republic is that all laws apply equally to everyone, not just the peons in the general public. If the President believes any part of a law to be unconstitutional, it is his responsibility to return it to Congress along with his clearly stated reasons why he believes it to be unconstitutional. Once a law is signed by the President it becomes the law of the land until it is either repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by a court. The President does not have the prerogative of deciding which laws he will or will not enforce. If Congress overrides the veto of an unconstitutional bill, the members of Congress who voted to override it should be noted by the voters and turned out of office in the next election. These same principles apply to many Executive Orders as well.

Executive Orders

The power of the President to issue “executive orders” is an implied power common to all executives in or out of government. Just as executive orders in the private sector apply only to those employees under the supervision of that executive, executive orders issued by the President are binding only on the employees of the Executive Branch of government. They are not legally binding on the Legislative or Judicial Branches. Neither are they binding on employees of state and local governments or on the public at large. To consider them so is a violation of the constitutional doctrine of “separation of powers”.

Any executive order enforced on the general population by the police powers of the state becomes a despotic decree and should not be tolerated in a constitutional republic. The first sentence of the body of the Constitution clearly states that,

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” (Art. I, Sec. 1)

Several of the Republican candidates have expressed their intent to issue executive orders — if elected — nullifying all or portions of laws already on the books. While this may sound good as a campaign promise and is well received by many conservatives; for the reasons stated above, it should be disturbing to all constitutional conservatives and possibly a dis-qualifier in the primary elections.

The unconstitutional use of recess appointments, signing statements and executives orders by Presidents are violations of the Constitution and of their oath of office. In fact, they are serious enough to be considered as impeachable offenses. More on this later.

Obama Flaunts the Constitution With Cordray Appointment

On Tuesday, President Obama announced four “recess appointments” to fill vacancies in the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These four appointments are indicative of a growing trend in the Executive Branch of government to circumvent the Constitution and rule by fiat. The appointment that has the Republicans up in arms is the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama first nominated Cordray to head the agency in July but his confirmation has been blocked by the Senate. In December, the Senate voted to delay the consideration of Cordray’s appointment 53 to 45.

In making the announcement, Obama told a crowd at an Ohio town hall meeting, “I refuse to accept ‘No’ as an answer” showing his growing willingness to bypass Congress and “go it on his own” when Congress stands in the way of his doing what he wants to do. Recess appointments are not new. Previous Presidents have made appointments of judges and other high-level officials in the past with minimal opposition from the Congress. While the Constitution allows for recess appointments there are limitations on that power.

Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3 says,

“The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”(Emphasis added)

Notice, this clause does not give the President the power to fill any vacancy he pleases, but only those that “happen” (come-up or occur”) while the Senate is in recess. It does not include those vacancies that happened before the Senate went on recess or positions previously created by Congress but not yet filled. Constitutional recess appointments are a logical and practical solution created by the Founders for dealing with unexpected vacancies in important positions such as Cabinet Members, Supreme Court Justices, etc., due to incapacitation, death or resignations that may happen while the Senate in not in session. Vacancies that existed before the Senate recessed and all other Executive appointments are subject to the conditions given in Article II of the Constitution.

“He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, ………….. And he shall nominate, and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministries and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by Law vest the appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”(Art. II, Sec. 2, Par. 2, U.S. Constitution)

According to this clause the President does not have the power to appoint someone to maintain his lawn at the White House unless that position has first been established by law and the President or the head of the Grounds Keeping Department has been authorized by law to make the appointment without the approval of Congress.

The practice of “recess appointments” as practiced by previous Presidents and carried to a new high by Barack Obama cannot be allowed to continue. The fact that it has become a tradition over the past century, in spite of the clear language of the Constitution does not change the constitutional injunction that elected officials honor their oath to defend the Constitution. To paraphrase an old theological question; How long does an error have to continue before it becomes truth?

Obama’s lawless, arrogant and dismissive attitude toward the Constitution and other institutions of the American government that we have cherished for over two centuries only highlights the critical need for us to return to constitutional government at the first opportunity. We cannot afford to nominate a Republican candidate in the 2012 election where there is the slightest doubt as to his or her fidelity to the Constitution and our founding principles.

Executives Orders and “signing statements” are two other common practices of modern Presidents that are just a pernicious and unconstitutional as “recess appointments”. All three have been abused frequently by Barack Obama to circumvent the intent of Congress. These will be discussed in future posts.

Is Socialism Inevitable?

Reprinted from Christian Patriots

The idea of societies with shared labor and shared property is as old as mankind itself. The first communal societies were made up of family members, then voluntary communities and eventually to involuntary sharing of labor and property enforced by some form of government body. Finally, the idea evolved into the political system known today as “socialism”, a term believed to have originated with Robert Owen sometime around 1825 to describe the collective communities he developed in Lanark, Scotland and later in New Harmony, Indiana. The idea itself has a natural appeal to human nature as a way to satisfy basic human needs with minimum individual responsibility.

Abraham Maslow, a leading behavioral psychologist of the twentieth century and the father of “humanistic psychology” identified five common needs that, according to him, provide the motivation for all human behavior. These needs form a “hierarchy of needs”, the lower level ones having to be satisfied before we are motivated to strive for the satisfaction of the higher-level ones. These needs, listed in their hierarchal order are physical needs, security needs, social needs, ego needs and the highest of all, self-actualization needs. As the name of his field of research implies he did not consider the need all humanity has to know and worship God. However, his research does give us a model for understanding why democracies usually end up with some type of socialistic system of government. Socialism is the natural order of societies without God.

Many people are willing to forego the higher level needs which include self-determination, liberty and freedom, in exchange for the promising possibility of being freed from their own responsibility of providing their own security from hunger, thirst, lack of shelter, etc., etc. As soon as the number of people willing to trade liberty for security reaches a majority, the minority become unwilling servants laboring for the benefit of the majority.  Socialism is often touted as the fulfillment of the Biblical injunction to “care for the poor”. This could not be further from the truth.

Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Exodus 20:17

The early churches experimented with a form of voluntary socialism. We read in Acts 4:32

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”

However, the practice was soon abandoned because it did not work. Instead, it created strife and divisions within the church, even though it was practiced within the church family and composed of professing Christians.  The apostle Paul had to deal with the problems the experiment caused in several of the churches, including Corinth and Thessalonica. In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote,

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work , neither should he eat . For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies . Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work , and eat their own bread.”
~II Thessalonians 3:10-12

The Plymouth Colony of Massachusetts experienced similar results in their experience with the socialist system imposed by their charter. William Bradford wrote in “History of the Plymouth Plantation”,

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

Far from being a fulfillment of Christian principles, political demands for socialism is universally based on covetousness, greed, jealousy and envy, the exact opposite of the Christian principle of caring for the sick, elderly and the poor. Socialism was first introduced into the American political system around 1892 by the Populist Party through its attacks on wealthy industrialists. Since then, the Democratic Party has routinely used class warfare and the people’s envy and jealousy of those who have been more successful than they have in life, to further their socialist agenda. This dubious tactic has been the hallmark of the Obama administration and the centerpiece of his reelection efforts.

History has shown that the good always ultimately triumphs over evil. That being true it might seem that the patriots (good guys) would easily triumph over the socialists (bad guys) in the 2012 elections. However, the key word in the above statement is “ultimately”. There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that socialism will ultimately be conquered. At the same time, we have to consider the possibility that God has condemned America to the misery of socialism as the consequences of its official rejection of His sovereignty and His plan for America for the past fifty years.

I believe as did the Founders, that America came into existence through the providence of God. I also believe, as did the Founders, that the providence of God guided the deliberations of the Second Continental Congress and the Philadelphia Convention to produce the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Based on History, I also believe that our founding documents contain the plan of God for America.  The election of Barack Obama and a socialist Congress in 2008 was the culmination of a hundred year drift away from the Constitution and the principles on which America was founded.

The Apostle Peter in a circular letter to the churches admonishes us to,

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme ; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.”  I Peter 2:13-14

This passage has two messages. First, is the obvious command to be good, law-abiding citizens obeying the laws of the nation or locality in which we live. It is also a reminder that God uses political authorities to punish nations and citizens who disregard His commandments and persist in an immoral and ungodly lifestyle. One of the most severe punishments given to the nations of Israel and Judah was by Nebuchadnezzar, the idolatrous king of Babylon. In about 600 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem, destroyed and plundered the Temple and carried the best and brightest of Judah into captivity, leaving only a remnant of the poor and less industrious of the people behind.

The story of Nebuchadnezzar plays an important part in the Old Testament, appearing in the books of 2 Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, and Ezekiel. The prophets make it clear that he was used as an instrument of judgment against Judah when its people rebelled against the commandments of God.

“But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath , He gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon.”  Ezra 5:12

“I [God] have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come : and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish , saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.”  Jeremiah 27:5-8

Nebuchadnezzar himself was also judged of God. The most famous judgment was when Nebuchadnezzar failed to give God recognition for the greatness of his kingdom, and as a result was sentenced to seven years of madness, living and sleeping in the fields and grazing with the cattle for his food. (As told in Daniel, chapter 4) Eventually, the Babylonian empire was overthrown by Cyrus the Great, King of the Medes.

Although the daily news stories of the past few years might indicate that God has given America into the hands of godless socialism, it is not inevitable; for we read in 2 Chronicles 7:14,

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray , and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

If we are indeed to take back our county in 2012, it will be by the providence and grace of God.