From the LDS magazine, Meridian, a popular author and columnist, Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, speaks out about the media’s “impartiality”.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor’s note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism.  You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere.  It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan?  It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups.  But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay?  They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.  One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules.  The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans.  (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me.  It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here?  Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout?  Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal.  “Housing-gate,” no doubt.  Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled “Do Facts Matter?” ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): “Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago.  So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President.  So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury.”

These are facts.  This financial crisis was completely preventable.  The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party.  The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie.  Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What?  It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let’s follow the money … right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an “adviser” to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents.  Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link.  (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth.  That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans.  You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that’s what honorable people do.  Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences.  That’s what honesty means .  That’s how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one.  He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards’s own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all?  Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women.  Who listens to NOW anymore?  We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That’s where you are right now.

It’s not too late.  You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation’s prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama’s door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis.  You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You’re just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

One of our favorite bloggers, Dan Ezell, welcomed a new addition to his family Tuesday. Luke O’Neil Ezell, made his grand entrance yesterday afternoon. Mom and son are doing well and we would like to join the Ezell family is thanking God for this newest blessing.

Luke O'Neil Ezell

Ok, so I keep hearing that conservatism is a “three-legged stool”. Those legs are social, fiscal and national security or defense conservatism. Everyone knows that a three-legged stool is supposed to be more stable because if one leg is shorter than the others, it still doesn’t wobble. Unfortunately, you can only take that so far. True, if one leg is slightly shorter, the stool will tilt a bit but it won’t topple over. However, if you let one leg get considerably shorter than the other two, you’ve got a real problem. Unless you enjoy landing on the floor with a thud. The way I see it, that’s exactly the problem the Republican party has got. We are supposed to be the party of conservatism, but lately, we’ve only been really concerned with two of our legs!

For the last several years, the party has been consumed with national security. That’s perfectly natural. We were attacked on our own soil after years of ignoring the threat. It’s about time we focused on security. No one (well, no conservative, anyway) can argue about that.

We’ve also seen a focus on fiscal issues. After eight years of Clinton in the White House, there was obviously some work to be done there as well. The Bush tax cuts were necessary and welcome. Unfortunately, the party’s fiscal leg took a bit of a beating in Congress with an inordinate amount of spending. One of my biggest disappointments with Bush was his seeming inability to find his veto pen! Still, ever since Reagan the ficons have gained power steadily in the party power machine.  That wouldn’t be a bad thing, in and of itself, except that it seems many of them are moderates, at best, on social issues. They are perfectly happy to push aside issues of life, marriage and family in exchange for some economic boon, whether real or perceived.

Social conservatives have been accused of being “single issue” voters, not only by the liberals but by members of our own party. I don’t doubt that some people are just that, but the vast majority of social conservatives would love to sit firmly on all three legs of our stool. Isn’t it about time we were given that chance? Why does one “leg” have to be sacrificed for the other two? If there’s a problem with the balance, the answer isn’t to keep cutting some off on one of the legs. The answer is to find something to prop up the shorter one.  I don’t know about you all, but I’m getting real tired of sitting on the floor.

The surprising (for some) choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as running mate was truly a bold move by John McCain. When all those “talking heads” were encouraging him to play it safe, he proved that he is still a bit of a maverick. Thankfully, he chose to play the risk game with a proven conservative and not a liberal. Sarah Palin is the real deal.

I wrote that first paragraph a couple of hours after the announcement of Palin as VP. Since then, many things have come to light. Not that any of them originated in the light, mind you, but in the dark recesses of the world of political mudslinging. Did any of these “startling revelations” change my mind about Sarah Palin? Well, yes and no. Let me explain.

The confetti had hardly finished dropping when the MSM, liberal blogs, weak-kneed Republicans, and those members of our Party that merely tolerate Social Conservatives began the onslaught of whining. “She’s not experienced enough to be President!” “No one knows who she is!” “What about Troopergate?”
Allow me to address these initials complaints before delving into the more nefarious diatribes that came later. I just finished dinner and it would be more than I could stomach to deal with the Daily Kos right now.

First, as to experience, Sarah Palin has more executive government experience than anyone still in the race. Even more than the man that chose her. She has been a mayor (I know, a little podunk town in AK, but what have any of those men been mayor of?). She is currently the Governor of Alaska, which may be one of our least populated states, but is the largest geographically. Last time I checked, a Governor did not just govern the people of a state, but also it’s resources. If I had to pick a state that I would want my next President trained in, Alaska would be right up there. It’s rich in natural resources and is basically wedged between Canada and Russia. What other state can claim to be bordered by two different foreign countries? Ok, technically, it doesn’t border Russia, but you can see it on a clear day and if you’re really good, you could probably spit on it. My point is that Sarah Palin has got foreign policy experience by virtue of which state she governs. In fact, she just signed a deal with a Canadian company to begin development of a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline from a treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay to the Alberta Hub in Canada. Most people are unaware of how much dealings Governors have with foreign interests in the course of their jobs. Is it the same as negotiating a treaty or deciding whether or not to go to war? Of course not, but no one has that kind of foreign policy experience when they enter the Oval Office unless they’ve been VP or Secretary of State.

Now, the question of unfamiliarity. I totally understand that only Alaskans and political junkies had any real prior knowledge of Sarah Palin. I just don’t see why that’s a bad thing. It seems to me that when you are running against a candidate whose only calling card is “change”, an unknown might just fill the bill. Look at how much grief Obama got for choosing a long-time Washington insider! If McCain had made a similar choice, the mantra of “four more years of Bush” would be ringing across the land. Anyone who is even vaguely aware of JM’s prior record knows he would have never gone for that. So what were his options? Well, it’s since been revealed that he really, really, really wanted Lieberman. Thank goodness he was convinced, at the eleventh hour, of the foolishness of that choice. That pretty much left Sarah Palin. Does that mean that it was a rushed decision. One without proper forethought? No, it doesn’t. It was a process of elimination among qualified, fully vetted candidates. I suspect that the more America gets to know her, the more they will love her. She’s one of us.

Then there’s “Troopergate”. I admit, when I first got a whiff of that one, I was a little worried. I was worried for exactly as long as it took me to google it. Trust me, Palin ought to get a medal for this one. The problem began when her sister left her husband, Mike Wooten, who was a state trooper. Wooten made death threats against his father-in-law, his estranged wife, his stepson, and Palin. This was all before Palin was governor. When she became governor, she brought all of this to the attention of Walt Monegan, her appointee to the Board of Public Safety. I can’t imagine why she expected him to fire a trooper that had a restraining order against him for domestic violence, had tasered his 10 year old stepson (supposedly to prove the child wasn’t a “mama’s boy”), was known to drive while intoxicated and was stupid enough to have a picture taken of him riding a snowmobile while he was out on Worker’s Comp. Silly me. I actually expect law enforcement officers to obey the laws, not just enforce them on others. Still, that’s not the reason given for the dismissal of Walt Monegan. He was offered a position with the Bureau of Alcohol, but turned it down and was, subsequently fired as the head of Public Safety. Palin’s administration sticks to her story that it was because of his dereliction of duty in the filling of vacancies in the department and his inability to “play ball” when it came to the budget. We’ll probably never know what the real reason was. I, frankly, don’t care. Government appointees serve at the pleasure of the governor. She obviously wasn’t pleased. Nuff said. My only problem with the whole thing was that it took her so long to get rid of the idiot.

So, you see, I still really like Sarah Palin, but the news of the last few days did change my mind. It made me like her even more.

I’ll deal with the despicable treatment of the Palin’s children in another blog. It’s still too soon after dinner.

Someplace this week, in one of the many blogs and news sites I frequent, I came across a comment on an article about abortion. The writer pleaded with the author of the article, and I guess those of us reading it, to quit using the term “pro-life”. It seems he had an issue with it because so many people claiming to be “pro-life” were, to his way of thinking, supporting multiple policies that resulted in death. I can only assume that he meant capital punishment and war. His suggestion for new terms were, of course, pro-choice and anti-choice. Being a bit of a word fanatic, this suggestion did not exactly meet with my approval. You see, it’s just not accurate. If, indeed, we are to throw out the term “pro-life” because it does not accurately portray those bearing the title, we must seek a new set of words that do just that.
One of the problems I have with the whole “choice” thing is that both sides believe that women have a choice in their “reproductive rights”. We just disagree with what that choice is. Those supporting abortion rights believe that a woman should have the right to “choose” what to do with a baby she didn’t plan on and doesn’t want. One that will inconvenience her at work or school or make her body less attractive. Those that abhor abortion believe that the time to make the choice is before that unwanted child is conceived. Actions have consequences. Oftentimes, those consequences are inconvenient. C’est la vie.

The other problem I have with that terminology is that it only addresses the “choice” of the woman. The father of that child does not, usually, get a choice. The child certainly does not get a choice. So you see my dilemma.

So, what are our options, then? I suppose we could use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion, but that would certainly result in an outcry from their camp. No one is “pro” abortion, they’ll say. It’s just sometimes an unfortunate and sadly, necessary thing. They aren’t for killing unborn children, they just aren’t against it.

OK, I guess we’ll have to get technical then. This is where my nurses training stands me in good stead. I suggest that, from now on, we use the terms “pro-feticide” and ” anti-feticide”. Surely, this won’t upset anyone, as they don’t believe a fetus has any worth anyway. If the child is not yet capable of breathing on its own, it’s alright to kill it. Gee, I hope none of those folks find themselves in need of respiratory resuscitation anytime soon.

I came across an interesting article today posted on HuckPAC’s site. It addressed something that’s been bugging me for months. Early in the primary season, the Republican elite tried to derail the Huckabee campaign by labeling him a “populist”. Being a bear of more than a little brain, I had a fairly good idea of what that word meant. It’s roots are the same as the word “people”. Still, I decided I’d better do some research because it obviously couldn’t mean what I thought it did. It was spoken with such venom that it must have belonged in the ranks of those words my mother used to wash my mouth out for saying. Imagine my surprise when I found the definition to be pretty much what I thought it was. Here are a few:
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

And from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

1892, Amer.Eng., from L. populus “people.” Originally in reference to the Populist Party, organized Feb. 1892 to promote certain issues important to farmers and workers. The term outlasted the party, and by 1920s came to mean “representing the views of the masses” in a general way.

Yes, the word originated with the Populist Party, which, by the way, was formed to support the issues of the middle class and rural communities. Horrors! To think that people would actually expect to have their government interested in the needs of those that feed us and do our labor.

Being a good Political Science student, I decided that this wasn’t enough research. Obviously, I was still missing something. Certainly, there must be some connection with populism and some foul dark arts. As the primary rolled on, the word took on more and more negative connotation. I witnessed the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh spit the word out as if it were spoiled milk. So, I decided to call my favorite Poli Sci prof and pick his brains. I asked him what he could tell me about conservative populism. His response? He’d never really heard of it. Said it was a bit of an oxymoron. Seriously? You mean you weren’t aware of the fact that Ronald Reagan, the idol to which all good conservatives bow, was often referred to as a conservative populist? Nope. The only example he could come up with was the Puritans! I was amazed at how thoroughly the propaganda had done its job. Not even someone with a doctorate in Political Science could comprehend of a person being able to combine the values of conservatism with the compassion of populism. When did we conservatives get such a hard reputation? When did we decide that we must sacrifice caring for others to attain fiscal responsibility? And how, on earth, did they convince those of us that are Christians that this was ok? I said, as often as anyone would listen, during the campaign: When did we allow populism to become a dirty word? Isn’t the purpose of a representative government to protect the rights of the people? To “represent” us? Or is that just some of us?

It is becoming painfully apparent that those running the Republican Party aren’t interested in the “little people”. They are interested in those that can raise millions of dollars for them without breaking a sweat. And the DNC is anathema to our social values, and frankly, take the whole government helping the little guy way too far.

So where does that leave us? It looks like we’re the Cinderella of the party. Hopefully, our prince will come soon. Hopefully, he didn’t already come and we missed him.

Tony Snow lost his battle with colon cancer this morning. He was a 53 year old husband and father of three. I have always admired him and the way he never backed down from a challenge. Most admirably, he always faced those challenges, be they political or personal, with good humor and a smile. Here is the transcript of his speech at CPAC last year. I hope you all find it as inspiring as I did.

Former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, D.C.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate sent a letter demanding that our troops leave – because for many Democrats, retreat was more desirable than victory. We know the story: A conservative president, George W. Bush made a tough call at a time of crisis – and the world is a better place.

One of our members, James Baxter, sent this to me this morning. May we all reflect on what this day truly commemorates and thank God for His providence in establishing and defending our nation’s freedoms. I would encourage each of you to thank those that you know that are engaged in the continual fight to preserve those freedoms. If you know a soldier, thank them; if you don’t know one personally, perhaps a trip to your local VFW hall would be in order. I have a cousin that celebrates the 4th that way each year. He stops in to the local VFW and thanks those that served their nation so honorably. I think it’s a great idea.

Enjoy this day with your family and friends and I hope that you find the following a timely reminder of Who is really in charge of this nation.

THE DECLARATlON OF INDEPENDENCE

“Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are dinged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him (Isaiah 51:1, 2).”

When it comes to celebrating this most American of holidays, it is interesting to note that our Founding Fathers didn’t consider the 4th of July a holiday at all. No, to them this day represented far more than just another festival to acknowledge in the myriad of special days Americans honor. According to John Adams, the second President of the USA, the 4th of July, “Ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. “ Surprisingly, John Adams believed Independence Day was to be a Holy Day to be spent in Thanksgiving to the Almighty for His mighty deliverance that He wrought on the behalf of our fledgling nation.

His son, John Quincy Adams, our 6th President, declared, “Why is that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day (July 4th). 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…”

According to Mr. Adams, it took the spread of Christianity 1,800 years to finally culminate in the establishing of America. He believed the highest glory of the Revolution permanently linked the principles of Christianity with the principles of civil government. He viewed the Declaration as the first social compact and governing document in the history of man to establish its foundation on the mission of Jesus Christ in the earth. Obviously America is dreadfully void of that perspective today.

Yes, there is much evidence that points to the fact that America is a unique nation amongst the nations of the earth. It is evident that the land itself was preserved for a special purpose in God’s Providence. Although America was prime “real estate” in the earth and filled with natural resources, it remained virtually untapped for thousands of years. You do not see the pyramids of Egypt, the glory of Rome, nor the grandeur of Greece upon these shores. Why is it that there was no great civilization established here until a persecuted people longed to be free to worship the God of Heaven in Spirit and in truth came to America’s shore? If you can answer that question then you are on the road to understand the vision for America and her destiny that stands in peril today.

Another unique mark upon this nation that is exclusively American is the fact that we are the only nation on earth that was founded on a creed. All the other nations on earth were essentially established upon ethnicity, nationality, or race. Not so with America. Regardless of skin color or any other physical attribute that distinguishes human beings, what makes an American an American is a creed. A creed that is articulated in a document we call The Declaration of Independence.

Before we explore some vital points of that creed, we need to understand, whereas the Constitution is the letter of the law, (that has been twisted, bent, and perverted through judicial activism to subject Americans to legalized evil today) the Declaration is the Spirit of the Law. The Declaration supplies the premise, the presupposition, and the underlying principles that we have forgotten to the Constitution’s harm. You will see this clearly as we examine a few of those foundational principles contained within the Declaration that was to be the heart, soul, and source to establish and sustain our Christian Republic called America.

On July 4th, 1776, the delegates of the Continental Congress voted to ratify the Declaration which began with these profound words, “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature God entitles them.. ” Stop right there and hold the presses. It is extremely important to understand and it cannot be emphasized enough that our Founding Fathers cited the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as the sole basis for breaking ties with England and to become a separate nation in the earth. To comprehend the magnitude of that particular phrase utilized by Thomas Jefferson, one must look to Sir William Blackstone who was the first one to coin that phrase.

Sir William Blackstone was a renowned English jurist who wrote the highly influential work called, “Commentaries on the Laws of England ” He was one the most quoted sources, besides the Bible, John Locke, and Baron de Montesquieu, which our Founding Fathers cited as the basis for law in America.

Blackstone defined the laws of nature and of nature’s God as, “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being … And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will … this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil . This law of nature dictated by God Himself; is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this… The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found in the Holy Scriptures … {and} are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (Thomas Jefferson penned of nature’s God as a substitute for the law of revelation) depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”

According to Blackstone who was the inspiration behind the laws of nature and of nature’s God, the creation itself testifies and teaches man that there is a Supreme Designer that created the universe. The immutable laws contained within nature reveal a Creator that man is to be subject to by virtue of being a dependent creature. Apparently, Blackstone was a jurist who studied the only sure basis for law that is found in Holy Writ. Both Romans 1:20 and Psalms 19 :1-3 verify this truth.

According to Blackstone, even though man has reasoning capabilities, it has been made corrupt by sin. The Lord did not leave revelation to chance however. No, He made a direct appeal to mankind through what Blackstone called the “law of revelation,” in which the Declaration interprets “of nature’s God.” The Ten Commandments, God’s moral Law, was God’s way of appealing to man objectively to confirm within man what he instinctively knows to be true. Yet, due to man’s fallen nature again, we inevitably suppress the truth and exchange it for a lie. Undeterred, in God’s great mercy, He sent the second person of the Godhead, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the most perfect revelation and we are therefore without excuse.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the expressed image of God (Hebrews 1:3). He was the Word (God’s direct revelation to man) who was God in the flesh and dwelt amongst us. Jesus stated, “If you’ve seen me, you have seen the Father (John 14:9).” In other words, Jesus was the visible manifestation of the invisible God. According to Blackstone, unless laws was based upon these truths, they were not laws at all and “no human law should be suffered to contradict these. ”

Our next stop along the way as we explore the Declaration is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Can you believe in this moral relativistic age in which we live, that our Founding Fathers actually had the audacity to believe in a concept called truth? Now truth by its very nature lends itself completely to the notion that there are moral absolutes. Obviously, our Founding Fathers would be laughed to scorn today, if they brought that archaic view to our ‘enlightened” humanistic temples we call public schools.

We don’t teach children that there is such a thing as self-evident truth, moral absolutes, and a definite right and a definite wrong. No! we teach the kids to decide for themselves what is right or wrong with no standard except what their own greedy, selfish, and unregenerated hearts crave. As a result, millions of American children are left to construct their own “truth” and values apart from the God of the Bible that our Forefathers trusted in. Can there be any doubt that this mentality has opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box that is savaging our young today? The school shootings are a direct result of rejecting the time honored wisdom of our Founding Fathers and embracing a pagan, moral relativistic philosophy instead.

Yes, our Founding Fathers believed in self-evident truth that was not based upon the subjective experience of fallen man, but on God’s objective truth that is transcendent and authoritative over man. Yes, they believed in truth because they longed for freedom. They knew Biblically, you can’t have freedom without truth, for only the truth can make you free (John 8:32). America would do well to remember from whence she came and what those who birthed her actually believed.

The next important phrase contained in the Declaration goes like this, “That all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Notice it doesn’t say that man evolved into equality and by virtue of evolution Americans have certain unalienable rights. Why is it our Founding Fathers believed in creationism, and yet, we can’t teach our children in America that they were created in God’s image with with a God-given destiny, instead of being a cosmic accident?

Ideas have consequences, my friend. Evolution has been the intellectual underpinnings of every atheistic, totalitarian government that has committed unspeakable atrocities against the very people they claimed to serve. Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are just a few of the regimes that rejected the concept of Creator and opted for evolution as a support for their mass murder. Their bloody history aptly displays the bitter fruit of an atheistic state that utilizes evolution as the intellectual underpinning to justify their horrific oppression. After all, evolution teaches that the strong survive, so it is ethical to exploit, abuse, and destroy the weak to get what we lust for in life, right? No! A thousand times no!

We see this mentality so clearly manifest with the struggle over abortion. Men use and abuse women by virtue of their superior strength and now women demand to have that same power and right to abuse someone weaker then themselves, their own helpless children. God help us! Christianity on the other hand teaches that the strong are to help the weak, not exploit them. This Biblical concept is one of the reasons that made America great. How many times has America invested our blood, treasure, and toil to aid weaker nations that were subjugated to tyranny by stronger nations?

What has happened to America since we have officially rejected our Creator that our Founding Fathers looked to as the basis of establishing America as an independent nation amongst the nations of the earth? Are we not becoming what we fought against in World War Two? As I write, America seems hell bent on using our superior strength, political clout, and finances to spew the filth of Hollywood, abortion, the feminist doctrine, and the homosexual agenda throughout the globe. Is it any wonder why Islam calls America the “Great Satan” and seeks our destruction?

The Declaration proceeds with these words, “That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not a guarantee of happiness that the government as Savior’ programs promise). That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed “ Our Founding Fathers believed that man’s rights came from God, the Creator, and that civil government was established to protect those rights. This is the clear teaching of Romans 13:1 which states, “Let every soul he subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Historically, Americans believed that we were One Nation under God. Our national motto is “In God We Trust.” It is not the gods, but the One true and living God, the God of the Bible, the triune God of Holy Scripture, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. When mankind rejects this Biblical truth of God’s sovereignty, however, man has only two other failed options available. First, the state is sovereign and the ultimate authority, which historically has led to the murderous regimes previously mentioned that has crushed the freedoms, lives, and property of many. In fact, the 20th century alone, has witnessed hundreds of millions of innocent people massacred by this monstrous lie. The second option is man as an individual is sovereign, which has led to anarchy, chaos, and confusion. Only One Nation under God can secure the delicate tension between the social order on the one hand and individual freedom on the other. All else is sinking sand and cisterns that can’t hold water.

Indeed, God is the supreme authority and civil government is a delegated authority established by Him for His pleasure and for our benefit. The Declaration then warns civil government, ‘that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.” This particular phrase is why we are crying out for a “Gentle Revolution.” Either America experiences a spiritual, godly, and moral revolution that lands us squarely back upon the “Rock” from which we were hewed, or I shudder to think of what may befall us.

Finally, our Founding Fathers make their appeal,

“to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions… With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

In the Declaration, the God of the Bible is acknowledged as Law-giver, the source of Law, Creator, the Source of life, the Supreme judge, the highest authority, and the Protector of America’s rights. Without this revelation beating in the heart of every true American, then all the 4th of July represents is eating, drinking, and watching fireworks. I pray that each of you that read this article will consider these historical truths and their implications. They represent the righteous foundations upon which America once stood. We must awaken and recognize that these foundational truths are beginning to crumble as we abandon God, our righteous heritage and the principles that made us great. Our history is being deleted or rewritten to further the “foes of our own American household’s” agenda. We must therefore, look to the Rock that hewed us and the Patriarchs that bore us before it is too late. GOD SAVE AMERICA AND NO KING, BUT KING JESUS!

IN KING JESUS’ SERVICE,

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas