“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?”

Adams was exactly right: America’s birth is directly linked to the birth of our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, founded upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within America’s earliest history.

America’s forebears first established a written covenant with God as early as November 11, 1620, when they penned The Mayflower Compact. It states in part:

“In the name of God, Amen. … Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

The sentiments and statements of America’s founders make it clear that this nation has enjoyed a love and appreciation for the rights and freedoms recognized in Natural Law that is unique in the annals of human history. No other people have such a heritage.

One thing America’s founders could not envision was–after they had paid so terrible a price to purchase our liberties–that the time would come when their posterity would be denied the basic freedoms to publicly express their reverence for God. Never could they have imagined that the day would come when citizens of the sovereign states (each with a State constitution protecting religious liberty) would be denied their right to pray in school, or place Nativity scenes on public property, or hang copies of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls.

I am also confident that America’s founders would be completely repulsed by the way the United States has jumped headlong into corporatism, socialism, and globalism. At the national level, Democrats and Republicans alike have created a central government so large that it would be unrecognizable to any Founding Father (even Alexander Hamilton or John Adams). In addition, both Big Business and Big Religion have sold our great country down the old proverbial river. Truly, our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Therefore, at this Christmas season, let us remember well the founding principles of these United States of America. Furthermore, let us renew with vigor the fight for freedom before our liberties and our heritage are gone altogether.

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas!

P.S. Many readers of this column also watch our live stream broadcast from Liberty Fellowship each Sunday afternoon at 2:30pm (Mountain Time). Since this Sunday is Christmas Day, Liberty Fellowship will conduct its service on Christmas Eve, Saturday, December 24, at 5pm (Mountain Time). And, yes, this service will be broadcast live. I invite readers to join us as we celebrate Christ’s birth this Saturday, December 24, at 5pm (Mountain Time). To view our live stream broadcast, click here.

For more by Chuck Baldwin, click here.

[As he left public life, George Washington had serious concerns for the country he helped bring into being. He had surprising insights into the situations this new nation would face and (often ignored) advice on avoiding pitfalls that have destroyed other nations in the past. The language is difficult to comprehend at times, but we can learn from his wisdom or we can continue to ignore it at our peril.]

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it – It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

[As he left public life, George Washington had serious concerns for the country he helped bring into being. He had surprising insights into the situations this new nation would face and (often ignored) advice on avoiding pitfalls that have destroyed other nations in the past. The language is difficult to comprehend at times, but we can learn from his wisdom or we can continue to ignore it at our peril.]

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

[Conclusion tomorrow]

This sounds like a deal that is too good to be true. And, when we look at it a little more closely, it really is too good to be true. This has been presented as a bi-partisan approach to the problem. This description brought to mind the late comedian George Carlin’s thoughts about such proposals, “Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.”

While all the benefits we are supposed to experience because of this bill are necessary and to be desired, we really have to consider what we will do to get them. One of the provisions is that the visas will not be work visas, so buyers will have to have an independent source of funds. We are told that this is the kind of people we want… they are the priority immigrants. They are to be desired if they will come into our country and spend their own money. It is certainly better than people sneaking across the borders and becoming wards of the state.

Yet, in most contexts, people coming in from other countries and buying half a million dollars worth of real estate is a substantial purchase, particularly for someone not permitted to work, yet living in the US for at least six months out of the year. It could be considered bad form to have independently wealthy foreigners move into a neighborhood while people in some surrounding homes are struggling to keep their own houses.

Worse yet, investors are snapping up foreclosures at record pace. Is it really beneficial to have many rental properties held in the name of absentee owners with no concern for fellow citizens? As an American who loves his country, I did not feel comfortable when the Japanese bought Rockefeller Center. Chinese are buying up American real estate. Americans are loosing their homes and businesses. This just seems to be adding insult, from our government even, to injury.

Perhaps there is nothing we can do about this while the current regime is in power, but our country is being bought up by foreigners one building at a time. This proposal idea will only aggravate the situation. Sure we need to do something. Selling our country just doesn’t seem to be the answer.

Perhaps it’s the answer we need, yet, giving our country away just doesn’t seem to be the way to go. Our government is mortgaging our childrens’ future. Overseas investors are already buying up our real estate. Private sector incomes are dropping while average government incomes are rising. It just seems that the average citizen is being left behind to serve the elites, foreign and domestic. Is this the path we really want to take?

New York, NY – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reference to the United Nations as the “theater of the absurd” is an apt description of an organization that was designed to bring peace among nations. The UN has lost its legitimacy in light of recent events.

Rather than entertain a request for statehood of the Palestinian Authority (PA), presented Friday by Mahmoud Abbas, the UN should reject it outright. The PA’s request for statehood includes the Gaza strip, Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank), and the Golan Heights, but the PA does not control the West Bank or the Golan Heights, where hundreds of thousands of Israelis live and where Israel provides security. How can the UN entertain a request for statehood on land not controlled by the entity making the application?

Abbas and the PA sanction terrorism against Jews and refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, Abbas denies the Holocaust. Abbas, using his other name, Abu Mazen, studied at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, where he earned a doctorate degree and wrote a dissertation entitled, “The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement,” in which he attempted to prove that the Nazi Holocaust of Jews never occurred. As Abbas denies the Holocaust of the Jews, refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and sponsors terrorism against innocent Jews, he is in the same company as Hitler or other leaders of genocide.

Last week the UN allowed Ahmadinejad to spew his hatred of the Jews. The UN’s judgment and policies have become a farce. Gadhafi’s Libya once chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq headed the UN Committee on Disarmament. Today the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon presides over the UN Security Council, resulting in a terrorist organization presiding over a body tasked with keeping the world safe.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “America ought to take a leadership role and end the absurd practices of the United Nations. The UN’s policies award terror and punish those truly seeking peace. The UN has become dominated by Muslim-controlled countries and can no longer be trusted to keep its original mission of making the world safe for all. The theater of the absurd needs to begin a new chapter.”

[Editors note:  Earlier this week we posted an article that referenced Federalist 2, written by John Jay.  I thought it would be well to include the full article as there is much to learn from Jay's valuation of unity.]

To the People of the State of New York:

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants.

A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

This convention, composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.

Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only recommended, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: “FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.”

PUBLIUS

When United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his plan “to fundamentally transform the global economy — based on low-carbon, clean energy resources,” few realized he was calling for a new global tax to be designed without public scrutiny, but that is exactly what he meant. To thwart it, the UN’s flawed process and its tax design scheme must be exposed.

The UN’s one nation, one vote system has been used since its founding to render the U.S. impotent, regardless of the fact that we are its major financial donor. It is credulous to think that UN reforms could fix its flawed process. Banning the press and global tax opponents from its July 13-14 tax design meeting in Tokyo, Japan, for example, is anathema to a democratic process, but the UN is not a democracy. Rather, its unelected bureaucrats use a “collaborative decision-making process” to reach “consensus” with no debate or expressed opposition. The UN calls it “global governance” and Ban Ki-moon describes how it works: “While we are all in the same boat, not all have a say in how to steer it.”

The tax saga began in earnest last December in Cancun, Mexico when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992, created a Transitional Committee charged with designing a new Green Climate Fund. The Committee is to design the Fund to amass a minimum of $100 billion a year, which is to be approved at the next major meeting of the UNFCCC in Durban, South Africa this December.

The Committee consists of representatives from 40 nations, including the U.S., who are considering taxes on carbon, international aviation and shipping, international financial transactions and a wire tax for producing electricity. The UN is also pushing for removal of fossil fuel subsidies and redirecting them to its international green agenda, which would cause the U.S. to be even more dependent on foreign oil.

The purpose of the Fund is to enable the UN to implement its global blueprint for sustainable development called Agenda 21. This green agenda is the new Marxism that requires government ensured economic equity and environmental neutrality. Agenda 21 is not a treaty, but a plan of action produced by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

In the U.S., federal and state legislatures were bypassed when then-President Clinton signed an executive order to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to implement Agenda 21. Federal grants continue to flow to local governments to carry out the UN’s green agenda across America.

Granting the UN the right to tax would be like giving it a blank check for future use. Taxpayers can be assured of perpetual demand because it has no idea what it will cost to “go green.” Two years ago, it estimated the cost at $600 billion annually for the next decade, but today its estimate is at least $1.9 trillion annually for the next 40 years or $76 trillion!

Political manipulation of climate change is key to global taxation and the fundamental transformation of the global economy. Since the 1997 UNFCCC meeting in Kyoto, Japan, I have watched the UN agitate class warfare to create a demand for a global tax to “green” third world economies.

At the first tax design meeting in Mexico City last April 28-29, I was told that approval for my attendance was a “fluke” and that I should not have been credentialed to attend. Nonetheless before departing Mexico, I was assured that I would be invited to follow-up meetings.

When I did not receive an emailed invitation, I asked a U.S. Congressman to intercede. His chief of staff called the UNFCCC in Bonn, Germany and was told the only entry was through one of the UN’s nine “constituency focal points,” so I next contacted them. Not even the U.S. Departments of State or Treasury could penetrate the UN’s bureaucratic morass.

Typically I attend UN meetings with press credentials, but because the press was banned from the Committee meeting, I petitioned the UN’s women and gender constituency. They initially told me they had space, then withdrew their invitation stating, “I find it quite audacious [for you] to try to go on our ticket, given the positions you have.” Eagle Forum indeed opposes a global tax and the UN’s radical feminist positions that would not even be discussed at the tax design meeting.

The UN’s tax scheme must be derailed because it is only the opening salvo in an all-out war on the U.S. economy and national sovereignty. The U.S. Congress should cut ALL funding to the UN until it backs away from its global tax scheme!

Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 22 puts two misconceptions to rest: 1) the fallacious philosophy that a man can be a law unto himself and is, therefore, not subject to any civil government or authority, and, 2) the draconian doctrine that government (Caesar) is, itself, above the law and can force God’s people to submit to anything it so desires. In one brilliant statement, the Lord Jesus forever expunges both errors.

Obviously, if men were perfectly sinless, there would be no need for human government; but, since every man has tasted of Adam’s fallen nature, God instituted human government for the overall peace and safety of civil people. No man is a law unto himself–including people in government! This is especially true in the United States, because America has no Caesar! America’s founders clearly understood this principle. Thomas Jefferson reflected this understanding when he said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

In other words, when men are elected to public office, they do not lose their sin nature! The propensity of men to be selfish, power-hungry, and oppressive is ubiquitous. Plus, this propensity is energized when men are put in positions of power. Therefore, it is incumbent upon free people to recognize, not only their duties and responsibilities to government, but also to recognize the duties and responsibilities of government to the people.

If free men and women must cede certain limited rights and freedoms to society in general (i.e., government; “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s;”), it is also necessary that they put a watch and check upon government so as to not allow it to usurp those liberties and rights that have not be ceded. For the people of the United States, that watch and check is the principles and doctrines contained in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It amazes me how Christian statists quote Jesus’ words in Matthew 22 with such flippancy. In the first place, as noted above, America has no Caesar! This is not a monarchy. Therefore, in order for Christians to understand Jesus’ words, it is necessary that we understand our own form of government. Unless we understand the governing system of this country, it is not possible that we can properly submit to Jesus’ instructions.

As previously noted, America does not have a monarchial form of government. Neither is the United States a democracy–the ignorant rhetoric of politicians and newscasters notwithstanding. America is a constitutional republic. Or, one could also say, America is a confederated republic. This means, the government in Washington, D.C., is NOT a NATIONAL government; it is a FEDERAL government.

The doctrine of federalism means there are separate and competing jurisdictions in the United States: the jurisdiction of the federal government, with prescribed and limited duties and responsibilities (i.e., the US Constitution); and the jurisdiction of State government, with undefined and (nearly) limitless duties and responsibilities. And as the founders repeatedly expressed, the states were presumed to have the much greater authority and jurisdiction.

To show you how far down the road of misunderstanding we have gone, when the founders created the US Constitution, it was the states that defined and dictated the authority and boundaries of the federal government; today, it is the federal government that defines and dictates the authority and boundaries of State government. Over the last century or so, we have allowed the federal government to completely invert and distort the very meaning of federalism and freedom in this country.

Therefore, if Christians truly want to follow Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 22, they will be willing to give proper rendering to the lawful prescriptions (and proscriptions) of constitutional government. In other words, for Christians to allow our civil magistrates at the federal level to supplant and encroach upon the authority of the states is to deny the teachings of Jesus Christ, and to, in effect, become heretical in their faith and practice. Remember, the second half of Jesus’ instructions is to render unto God “the things that are God’s.” By allowing an oppressive federal government to trample and usurp God-ordained State authority and autonomy, Christians have sinfully rendered unto Caesar the things that are God’s. How dare them?

Under our form of government, the individual states are “free and independent.” (Declaration of Independence) That means, America is NOT ONE NATION, BUT A CONFEDERATION OF 50 NATION-STATES!

When the socialist Francis Bellamy (who was also an ordained Baptist minister) penned the Pledge of Allegiance following the War Between the States, he did so to advance the socialistic vision of America (shared by Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson) as ONE NATION, meaning to have ONE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. It was Bellamy’s way of repudiating the Jeffersonian philosophy of America’s founders that our country was a confederated republic. And, sadly, Bellamy’s scheme worked.

Accordingly, if patriotic Americans want to recite a more accurate Pledge of Allegiance, they would quote the one authored by my constitutional attorney son, Timothy Baldwin: “I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the Republics, which it protects, one federation, under God, composed of States, with Liberty and Justice for all.” Now that is a pledge that truly conforms to America’s legitimate, foundational principles! (Why not try that pledge at your next Boy Scout or civic meeting!) Plus, this pledge is also consistent with the oaths taken by members of the US military, local and State police agencies, judges, attorneys, and, yes, even the President and members of Congress.

So, the next time some Christian statist throws Matthew 22:21 in your face to try and get you to submit to some oppressive, unlawful government dictation, why don’t you give him or her a little lesson in constitutional history and Christian ethics?

For more by Chuck Baldwin, go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com .

Barack Obama’s election to the highest Office in our Country is undeniably historic; he will forever be known as the first black man elected President of the United States. And we’re the generation that finally surpassed this racial threshold signifying how far we’ve come as a Nation. His election reflects the fulfillment of what Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed about so many years ago, where all men would be judged only by the content of their character and no longer by the color of their skin… as it should be.

Obama’s election is also historic for what he can uniquely do in the job, as no other President before him. Having won the highest platform of power and influence in the land, he could bring closure to the wounds of racism in America, and take us to the next level of rising above the sins of the past.

I grieved the night Obama won the Presidency, for two reasons, the second dovetailing the first, and neither had anything to do with objecting to a black man in the White House; on the contrary. I 100% do not agree with his ideology, his policies, or his desire to “fundamentally transform America.” I am not disappointed or surprised by his Presidency; it’s exactly what I expected and feared, and therefore why I grieved – I knew what was to come and didn’t want to go there. Now that we’re here in the thick of it, I feel all I never wanted to feel. I became part of the TEA Party to express that. The dovetail is I felt robbed of the joy of fully celebrating the first black president because I couldn’t celebrate Obama being the president. A black president is something I had longed and prayed for America and always believed I would see in my lifetime, just not someone as far left as Obama.

After I finished sobbing, I got on my knees and thanked God that at least we could finish healing the wound of racism in our Country. What an opportunity Obama would have to make that mark on history, something in which I could participate, support, and be grateful from the bottom of my heart.

How is it, then, since Obama’s election that it’s all been downhill? There’s never been such racial tension so ratcheted up, let alone from finally having the first black man in the White House. Shouldn’t the converse be the case?

Instead of feeling the joy of closure and the dawn of a new day, leftist blacks are feeling unabashedly emboldened to lash out at every perceived opportunity, exposing the stark contrast between how far we have actually come and sadly, how little they yet believe we have. Therein lays a huge part of this unresolved problem manifesting in projections of racism onto anyone who opposes the policies and agenda of the president who happens to be black.

Since before Obama’s election, the race card has been played at every turn. Regardless of polls showing that most of the Country is conservative to moderate, opposing his far left policies is blamed on racism. From musicians and celebrities, to politicians and talking heads in the very liberal, biased, main stream media, constantly crying “racism” wolf has become the disgraceful staple of their strategy to undermine and silence opposition.

At any time, the president could step forward with a genuinely meaningful exhortation, like the one he gave after the Arizona shooting tragedy, challenging everyone to step up to the better angels of our nature, putting an end to the divisiveness. He could historically finish the job Martin Luther King Jr. started.

Cue the crickets from the White House.

Unfortunately, Obama’s tacit approval has only fomented the ongoing problem, condoning the accusers who are ironically emboldened by his presidency.

Racism is racism whether it is white against black, black against white, or any other racial combination; it is not an exclusive club. It’s wrong, all of it. Given America’s history, white against black is understandably the most volatile, but it is not the definition.

“You white patty!” This was my first introduction to racism at age 7, racism hurled at me from two little black girls who didn’t want me to play with them. I had no idea what they meant, but their rejection was crystal clear and hurt me deeply. This engendered sincere compassion for anyone hurt in like manner. This vivid experience gave me a keen awareness and a special sensitivity to racism. I’ve since endeavored to both understand it and help abridge the divide.

To subsequently and falsely be called a racist cuts to the heart. Three years of it wears out the heart.

Admittedly and obviously, whites will never completely understand what it is like to be black, especially considering the stigma of slavery in America’s past and the subsequent struggles to get from there to here. I won’t pretend to ever know because I will never get the chance to walk in those shoes.

Conversely, many blacks do not understand what it is like to be white in today’s America, ashamed of our forefather’s sins, compassionate towards those so offended, yet grateful to live in a day and age where we’re all free to be that one great big melting pot of diversity.

At the height of this ultimate opportunity, Obama’s failure of leadership, missing perhaps this most significant opportunity to unite all Americans like never before, instead, has divided us more. Instead of this being the defining moment that takes us over that final hump into a higher level of American unity, and a proud celebration of that historic achievement, led by our first black president, we’ve taken 40 years of steps backwards. We’ve become the “Divided States of ObamAmerica.” What a legacy; the exact opposite of what it could and should be.

Now, on the eve of hitting the re-election campaign trail, trying to invalidate opposition, Obama has disgracefully thrown his own voice into the voluminous mix of shameful race-baiters, accusing “race is a key component of the TEA Party,” thus, further validating and encouraging this behavior when he should reprimand it and lead everyone above it. For any U.S. president to misuse racism for political gain is beyond offensive – it is reprehensible and completely irresponsible. It’s an egregious offense, undermining the very healing that otherwise lies in his hands and the power of his teleprompter.

My question to the president, and to all who continue to cry “racism” wolf, do you really want to heal racism in this Country? Or would you rather keep it on life support because it’s an effective tool to obtain the things you want, and that, much more than you want to heal racism in this Country?

“The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf” learned a harsh lesson: when liars do tell the truth, they are never believed. Playing the race card in like manner has the same undermining result. With every false accusation comes the lack of credibility for legitimate cases. Is this the price anyone wants to pay for political gain?

The truth is revealed in the choices made, not in the accusations laid. And if the latter choice is the answer, then sadly, the dream was nice while it lasted.

This article was first published in Wendi Lynn’s blog Right Makes Might.

The word “backfire” often describes a scenario where the opposite of the desired effect happens to our enemies. It is when their plans for our demise blows right up in their face(s) without us having to do anything.

This prophetic “word” will encourage anyone that has ever been used, betrayed, or rejected by a jealous or opportunistic person.

It is important for us to stay focused on G-d’s purpose for our lives when enemies rise up against us in these “end times”. We must stay focused and be strengthened by His Word:

Psalm 27: 1 – 3 & 13: The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? 2. When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. 3. Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.

13. I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living.

We have to always realize or remember that the devil looks for vessels that are spiritually and emotionally immature. Ingratitude will often cause people to spit into the wind but Galatians 6:7, clearly shows us that we will all reap whatever we sow.

“Backfire” in 2011 will not just be an encouraging word of individualistic significance but, I believe that this will be a word that will have global, regional, and national relevance.

There are several things to observe in the technical process that creates a backfire:

1. Backfire occurs when a vehicle is in a state of acceleration: The plans of the enemy may be proceeding at an accelerated pace. Those that witness the backfire may even be in awe at what may appear to be the strength or speed at which the enemy may be advancing. But, we must learn to exercise spirit rest as we wait on the fullness of time:

Psalm 37:7-9: 7. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. 8. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.

9. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.

2. Backfire is most often a loud and unexpected noise caused by the improperly timed explosion of fuel mixture in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine:

The explosion of the enemy’s plans will be unexpected by the enemy or the audience of spectators. The backfire may be unexpected but it will be something that will not be unmissable and even publicly seen.

3. The danger or harm experienced in a backfire is most often clearly seen in the discharge of a firearm. This is when the fragments of the fired cartridge fly backwards to harm the person shooting the gun:

In this Season of Backfire, what the enemy meant for evil, G-d will turn it around for our good. The devices, platforms, or persons manipulated to create the enemy’s plan will backfire on them in this Season.

Backfire: To Produce an unexpected and undesired result…

Shalom,

Pastor S. Alexis Wallace