Back to Obama’s Future

27 10 2008

What would an Obama presidency actually look like?

Focus on the Family released a chilling letter from a Christian in 2012 (pdf). 

Here is a sampling:

Far-left liberals could hold a 6-3 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court could rule same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right — in all 50 states.

Preaching from the Bible could be banned from radio and television.

States may not be able to restrict abortion, and taxpayers could be forced to fund abortions.

In several states, it could be illegal to own a gun.

Fear mongering or justified warning?


Barack Obama: Supporter of Infanticide

20 10 2008

Consider this post a fairly comprehensive tally of Barack Obama’s pro-murder record.

1.) In last Wednesday’s final debate with John McCain, Barack Obama answered a question regarding his opposition as an Illinois State Senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. His ace is that Illinois law already protected babies born alive during abortions. This is simply not true. Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins explains:

“He ignores a letter dated July 17, 2000 in which Illinois Attorney General Ryan reported that the Illinois Department of Public Health found there was ‘no basis for legal action’ to protect babies that survive abortion.

“On March 30, 2001, Obama spoke from the floor of the Illinois legislature, saying that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act placed an undue burden on doctors to keep a child alive. The fact remains that those who opposed the bill were unwilling to prevent infanticide.

“Senator Obama took the opportunity last night to continue to blur his radical abortion views. He has a long record of opposing any legislation that protects innocent life – opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion and voting four times against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The senator, in 2003, even voted against an identical version that passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and on which the pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality.

“Additionally, in a speech last year to Planned Parenthood, he promised to sign as his ‘first act’ as President a law that would overturn nationwide bans on partial-birth abortion as well as require the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. The speech is much more revealing about how far he will go to push his extreme views.”

2.) This video, with Jill Stanek, describes the horrific act of infanticide, known as induced labor abortions and is supported by Barack Obama. If you aren’t moved at the end, there is something wrong with you. Hint: There IS something wrong with Barack Obama.

3.) Jill Stanek’s website is loaded with all kinds of documentation and information proving Obama not only supports abortion and infanticide, but lied about it in this election’s debates. Here is a sampling:

Article by Jill Stanek: Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama

Obama stated pro-life proposals must be “amenable to reason.”

OK, Sen. Obama, let’s reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.

Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, “It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones.”

Links to Obama’s votes on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Audio of Obama arguing against giving medical care to abortion survivors

Video of Obama promising FOCA to Planned Parenthood

I doubt Christian supporters of Obama will actually take the time the investigate his actual record on abortion as if holding their hands over their ears and claiming ignorance will count when God holds them accountable one day. There are two primary lies being promoted by liberals to justify a vote for Barack Obama.

  1. “No results.” As the argument goes, no Republican president has succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade and I refuse to be a one-issue voter. So, since I agree with Obama the other 99% of the time, I can vote for Obama.
  2. “Decrease abortions.” Obama has more plans to decrease abortions.

The first is a peculiar argument to be making for voting FOR a pro-murder candidate. As if two wrongs make a right. Biblical fallacy? Absolutely. This is deceiving because it takes cooperation from the courts, namely SCOTUS, to overturn an unconstitutional ruling like Roe, not simply a pro-life president. Several Christians I know admit that, despite the life issue, being a big one, they can justify it because of agreement on other issues. That still doesn’t explain this issue and why they think it’s ok to vote for someone with a record and promises like Obama. If Obama himself, refuses to take God’s view of life stating it’s “above his pay grade,” then Christians who vote for Obama are endorsing this view. And every Christian knows when life begins. Support for Obama is thus either hypercritical or ignorance. Either way, it’s wrong. And Obama’s lack of ability to judge on this issue should reveal more about his character to his Christian supporters so that they’re not merely “single-issue” voters, but “values voters.”

The second is equally puzzling because it throws reason to the wind and embraces a liberal spin that is so easy to detect, it makes Lucifer in the Garden of Eden look like Bozo the Clown. Here is the basis from which this reason comes:

  • Protecting a Women’s Right to Choose: Obama will make safeguarding women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
  • Reducing Unintended Pregnancy: Obama will work to reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage, providing sex education, and offering rape victims accurate information about emergency contraception.
All women should have a right to choose; They can choose to have sex or not. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it’s no longer just her. She has a living person growing in her womb. Now, in cases of rape or incest, obviously there are few situations where this argument applies so, initially, I would trade abortion in these cases for abortion-on-demand. But the fact that there no pro-choice candidates who support this view, means liberals care more about killing unwanted babies than actually preventing abortions.
Obama’s support for comprehensive sex education ignores the most effective method of preventing pregnancies and thus abortions: abstinence. Instead, he takes the party’s position. I can’t help but wonder if he thinks encouraging abstinence is above his pay grade too.

Kids Can Pick Murder, but not Religion

31 07 2008

Americans United for Destruction of Religion Separation of Church and State believes students aren’t wise enough to decide for themselves on religion. But, somehow, kids are extraordinarily mature enough to choose to murder an unborn baby, recognize evolution is the only logical explanation for science, and be tolerant of homosexuality when they struggle with their own heterosexual hormones. AU sent an email today encouraging their members to direct questions to members of Congress while they are on August recess and in their home towns. One of those questions was particularly hypocritical, as I just pointed out:

Question: Do you believe that the public schools should be leading prayers and worship for students or should that task be left to the students’ parents?

It’s obvious that the Founders preferred Christianity over other religions and desired that it be taught and encouraged in schools and by the government. But the Founders also recognized other religions and tolerated their existence in a perfect blend of satisfaction for Christians and other beliefs. At least there weren’t efforts to silence or separate other beliefs from the majority like AU and other liberals attempt to do today. 

AU also claims prayer in school has been outlawed. But a cursory look at 150 years of judicial precedent shows this outlawing is actually unconstitutional. Like I’ve said before, liberalism is based in emotion, not fact and this question exposes that pretty well.

Our Work Cut Out for Us

30 07 2008

It’s no secret really. California politicians are liberal and don’t like family values. They are doing everything in their power (and some outside it) to be intolerant of any worldview contradictory of their own. After four judges gave the left a gift in May and legalized gay marriage, activists attempted to have a marriage amendment taken off the ballot in order to prevent their marriages between June and November from being invalidated. That effort failed, but homosexual lobbyists did succeed in getting the language on the amendment changed that dealt a blow to pro-family advocates in California. 

The ballot title originally approved for Proposition 8 described the proposal as an amendment “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  But after homosexual activists failed to get the initiative removed from the ballot, Secretary of State Debra Bowen changed the title to describe the proposal as amending the state constitution to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  The description also claims, with no supporting evidence, that the state will lose “several tens of millions of dollars” if the measure is passed.

Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been working to support the proposed marriage protection amendment. He believes that most people entering the voting booth will have only thing on their mind — and it will not be Prop. 8.

Consequently, says Dacus, pro-family forces have their work cut out for them in educating the voters. “We’re just going to have to work twice as hard to get the information out so that people aren’t confused and [so] they understand that marriage – as it has been defined for centuries, including as it has been defined throughout California history – has always been between one man and one woman,” he states. “This alleged ‘right’ recognizing homosexual ‘marriage’ is something that was just newly created by a few activist judges…a few months ago and is not to be treated as something that is long and established in the State of California.”

This presents a wonderful opportunity for churches to design and distribute literature educating voters in their communities on the facts on the amendment.

Are Christians Wrong to be “Single-Issue” Voters?

25 07 2008

After being gone a lot during the last week, I’m back to blogging. On several occasions, I’ve been berated by fellow Christians for seemingly voting on a single issue, namely abortion. But in recent years, same-sex marriage has become 1b. The recent, “Evangelical Manifesto,” a concoction of the religious left, made drastic pleas that Christians not allow these two issues to define our cultural identity. World Magazine Founder, Joel Belz offers a compelling defense why Christians should not apologize for voting on a single issue, but take an even stronger stand today.

Evangelicals shouldn’t be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven’t been wrong to say so. We aren’t fanatics.

And I’m not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I’m talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they’re doing is just fine. There’s forgiveness for individual sinners. There’s judgment for societies that lead them astray.

Society is trying its best to exert its tolerance for child-killing and homosexuals on Americans utilizing every arena from schools, businesses, and courts to the media, Hollywood, and advertising. The religious left would not argue that Christians are on the wrong side of these issues. And while Christians have not been as zealous on the environment, poverty, and healthcare, at least we are facing the right direction. Belz notes the key difference:

What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment?

That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. .

But here’s the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.

It’s hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing contradiction.

Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don’t just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice.

And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today’s poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we’d taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow’s elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system.

The religious left would do well to recognize who the real “single issue” voter is here: the liberal non-Christian who believes tolerance for special rights somehow won’t upset the social balance God created and instilled in the heart of every man. Today’s young Christians have been asked to buy a lie that their elder Christians were too narrow-minded and single-issue focused. I, for one, will not buy that lie and urge my fellow young believers to not apologize for being a single-issue voter either.

Controversial California Home-School Case Dismissed

15 07 2008

The unconstitutional February 28 ruling by a California Appeals Court outlawing ALL home-schooling in the state of California has been dismissed by a family court judge last Friday, July 11. The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled improperly that California parents without teaching credentials cannot home-school their children. This occurrence likely means the Court of Appeals decision will not be resurrected. 

LA Times:

A controversial legal ruling that outlawed most forms of home schooling in California will face greater scrutiny because the underlying family court case was dismissed earlier this week.

“It should mean the whole thing goes away,” said Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Assn. “I’m very optimistic for the long haul. I don’t see how in the world this case could be upheld. That [dismissal] absolutely bolsters my optimism greatly.”

Edward Steinman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said he does not believe that the family court dismissal undermines the ruling, but it could provide easy political cover if the appellate court wants to get out of the spotlight.

California has some 200,000 children currently being home-schooled. No court wants that many unhappy families protesting their decision. But home-schoolers are not out of the clear yet: 

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said the appellate court is expected to decide in the next few weeks whether to drop its earlier ruling.

“If that were to happen, we would be back at square one as if this whole mess had never taken place — at least legally speaking — because there’d be absolutely no precedent on the books,” he said.

Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said he is hopeful the court will do the right thing.

“We’ve had a tremendous alliance arguing on behalf of home-schoolers, and the case has been tossed out of the lower court,” he said. “We think the appellate court will do the right thing and settle the matter that parents can home-school in California.”

How ironic it is that the liberal mantra of rights, equality and tolerance is forced upon Americans when it comes to abortion, religion, and homosexuality. But since when does one bad home-schooling family make all the rest equally bad? There is no tolerance for the Christian worldview, especially in public schools where the state thinks it knows much better what is best for your children than you the parent does.

“Faith-Based” Separation

2 07 2008

Barack Obama enjoys dressing up like a sheep. It might be innocent enough, but the problem is that he is a wolf. Yesterday, Obama tried again to make inroads with evangelical voters in a speech in Zanesville, Ohio, discussing faith-based initiatives. Christians need to be able to discern the truth about what Obama is saying and what his intentions are. Obama is proficient at hiding many of his intentions and dressing others to appear in line with evangelical beliefs. But truthfully, his worldview is largely inconsistent with that of the bible. 

Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday that if elected president he would expand the delivery of social services through churches and other religious organizations; the announcement was a vow to achieve a goal he said President Bush had fallen short on during his two terms.

But Obama’s plan departed from the Bush administration’s stance on one fundamental issue: whether religious organizations that get federal funds for social services can take faith into account in their hiring. Bush has said yes. Obama said no.

“If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion,” Obama said. “Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

Americans United for Destruction of Religion Separation of Church and State’s Barry Lynn had mixed emotions about Obama’s ideas.

“I am disappointed,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This initiative has been a failure on all counts, and it ought to be shut down, not expanded.”

However, Lynn said he was pleased to hear Obama express support for church-state separation and say that he would bar government-funded proselytism and religious discrimination in hiring when tax dollars are involved.

Lynn said he is concerned that the Obama plan apparently would allow direct tax funding of houses of worship to run social service programs. That, said Lynn, raises serious issues of entanglement between religion and government.

If this isn’t an example of pandering for votes, nothing else will do. How can you have a faith-based initiative and not encourage faith for the recipients? Otherwise, it would be nothing more than welfare. Faith-based groups are far more efficient at this type of work than the government. They can make the dollars stretch much further, they are more familiar with their community and its needs, they can mobilize more volunteers, and most importantly, their results are superior. Not to mention a cursory reading of speeches and writings by the Founders indicates a clear preference for federal encouragement of the Christian religion while allowing the freedom to worship as one pleases.  

Obama made it clear that he wants to elevate his plan to the “moral center” of his administration. So, what does Obama mean by the “moral center?” Since Obama won’t tell us the truth on where he stands, we’re left to decipher the code. It sounds attractive, on the outside. His latest statements on the California marriage amendment over the weekend reveal a sinister clue. In a letter to a Sunday breakfast of the LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco, he thumbed his nose at traditional marriage:

“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution [to protect marriage], and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of any other states.”

Following Obama’s logic, which he obviously has not done himself, faith-based organizations that support traditional marriage will be disqualified from federal funding under an Obama presidency. Obama may speak “religion-ese” but his rhetoric speaks much louder than his words, if you can tune your biblical ear to understand.