Here We Go… Moving Left

21 11 2008

Barack Obama won the presidency this month by winning a handful of key states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004 and John McCain needed but did not get. There were several key demographics in each of those states that Obama won over to his side that I will address later. Many voters in these states were Christians who mistakenly believed Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian, would certainly not move as far left as their fellow believers were warning them. As a Christian, I must have grace for the poor judgment my fellow Christians displayed in their choice of president (no I-told-you-so’s), but in order for us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, it is important to point out these errors. 

This “non-I-told-you-so” occurrence I’m referring to is the ambushing by liberal Democrats to unseat Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) from his position on the Energy and Commerce Committee and replaced him with Rep. Harry Waxman (D-Calif.). Waxman’s overthrow is disturbing to many Democrats, who see the move as spurning the seniority system and an indication that Obama and Pelosi is veering their party sharply left

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats steered the House toward more aggressively tackling global warming and other environmental problems Thursday, toppling veteran Michigan Rep. John Dingell, a staunch supporter of Detroit automakers, from an important energy panel in favor of California liberal Rep. Henry Waxman.

The switch could help President-elect Barack Obama on Capitol Hill with one of his favored issues: trying to curb global warming by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But Waxman’s combative stance on climate change and other issues also could alienate Republicans and moderate Democrats, making it harder to get the bipartisan support Obama will need.

Of course the AP release limits the scope of this leftward coup to environmental repercussions and the automotive business. And this is precisely why it was important for Christians who supported Obama to heed the warnings and not vote for him. Obama’s march leftward is a smoke and mirror show and most Obama supporters cannot tell you the other, more important reason, this appointment is important. 

The Energy and Commerce panel is one of the most important House committees, with sweeping jurisdiction over energy, the environment, consumer protection, telecommunications and health care programs such as sex education and taxpayer funding of abortions. You may remember that Waxman was the one who used your taxpayer dollars to launch unsubstantiated attacks on the validity of abstinence education and pregnancy care centers. 

According to FRC Action, the leadership will not pursue the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) next year. Democrats have decided the issue carries too much political risk. They plan to postpone the legislation until they can chip away at smaller pockets of the values movement. 

With Waxman’s appointment and today’s story that President-elect Obama is delaying the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it seems the leadership plans to attack life and family by quietly dismantling things that won’t make front-page news like increasing taxpayer funding of abortions, ending conscience protections, and inhibiting free speech. Until they’ve paved the way with these incremental changes, liberals are putting off big ticket items like same-sex “marriage,” FOCA, and gays in the military.

Don’t continue to be fooled, brethren. If you helped vote in a president who stands opposed to these biblical principles because you liked his tune on other issues, here is your proof that he IS a leftist as we said he was. And this won’t be an isolated incident.





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.





Forget Gaffes, Flat-out Lies

3 10 2008

Biden’s 16 lies:

BIDEN LIE #1: Bipartisanship

BIDEN LIE #2: Deregulation

BIDEN LIE #3: Obama-Biden Will Raise Taxes

BIDEN LIE #4: Biden’s “Wrong” Health Care Attacks

BIDEN LIE #5: Barack Obama Voted For the 2005 Energy Bill

BIDEN LIE #6: When Obama was “Silent,” John McCain was Warning About Freddie and Fannie

BIDEN LIE #7: Joe Biden Voted Against the Energy Bill in 2005

BIDEN LIE #8: Barack Obama Loves John McCain’s Climate Change Plan

DEBATE FACT 2: Biden Was Not Taken Out of Context

BIDEN LIE #9: No Coal Plants Not Out of Context

BIDEN LIE #10: Obama’s “No Way” Unconditional Timetables

BIDEN LIE #11: Even Joe Biden Says Obama Was Wrong on Troop Funding

BIDEN LIE #12: Biden Says Barack Obama is Wrong on Pakistan

BIDEN LIE #13: Barack Obama’s Unconditional Meetings

BIDEN LIE #14: What Barack Obama Middle East Policy?

BIDEN LIE #15: “Just Air-Raiding Villages and Killing Civilians”

BIDEN LIE #16: Joe Biden and Barack Obama Are at Odds in 2002

More on the lies here and here.





Kill [the] Bill: We DON’T Have to Have this Bailout

24 09 2008

 

Kill the Bill

Kill the Bill

Via Michelle Malkin:

We don’t have to have this trillion-dollar bailout shoved down our throats.

You can make a difference.

Make your voice heard now. Every second counts: 202-224-3121.

It’s already working. Peter Viles at L.A.Land:

A key quote in this morning’s Senate hearing about the Paulson bailout is worth repeating. This comes from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat:

“Like my colleagues, my phones have been ringing off the hook. The sentiment from Ohioans about this proposal is universally negative.”

Not “overwhelmingly negative.” Not “deeply suspicious.” Not “extremely upset.” Universally negative.

I’ll state the obvious: Members of Congress aren’t generally in the habit of passing historic and spectacularly unpopular legislation five weeks before election day.

Conservatives should consider making a special call to John McCain’s office. He’s playing politics and waffling on this while American taxpayers have a huge tab at risk.





Seeing the Light

10 09 2008

It’s amazing. Some liberals are seeing the light while most remain ignorant and continue down the foolish road of actually trying to defend Barack Obama.

Popular Democrat strategist and columnist, Kirsten Powers, wrote a piece in the NY Post yesterday becoming the most recent of a handful of Democrats to recognize how imprudent it is to continue with these dimwitted attacks on Sarah Palin, as if she were the presidential nominee. Democrats chiding their fellow members, especially in the media, happens about as often as Haley’s Comet, so posting is compulsory.

Obama’s toughest challenge has always been to connect with working-class swing voters. So attacking the poster child for small-town values, Sarah Palin, was a bad strategy.

No, Obama didn’t engage in the mass sneering at Palin – but he did fall into the trap of disrespecting her. When McCain chose her, the Obama campaign’s first response was to ridicule the size of her town. Then the candidate himself began referring to her as a “former mayor” when she is in fact a sitting governor.

When she retaliated (justifiably) by mocking his stint as a organizer, the Obama camp was clearly rattled. Obama himself actually began arguing about the importance of community organizing. His supporters amplified this cry – claiming Palin’s attack was a racist slur and passing around e-mails titled “Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

Meanwhile, the rest of the country was probably wondering what being a community organizer has to do with being president.

Lured by the McCain camp, Obama supporters engaged in an argument about who had more overall experience – the top of the Democratic ticket or the bottom of the GOP ticket. This diminished Obama.

Meanwhile, the media lit up in all their cultural-elite splendor.

Alaska? they sneered. It has the population of Las Vegas! Funny how the coastal elite only sneers at red states with small populations. Howard Dean hailed from a blue state with almost the same population as Alaska and was a national phenomenon and front-runner for the presidency. Joe Biden’s Delaware has a similarly small population – but no mocking was forthcoming there.

Evangelicals will never vote for a woman who works! they declared. This from people who’ve likely never met an evangelical in their lives. They could barely contain themselves when they found out Gov. Palin’s daughter was pregnant, so sure were they that evangelicals would hang her from the highest tree. When evangelical leaders expressed support, there was a palpable disappointment that Palin or her daughter wasn’t branded with a scarlet letter.

They claimed that the Palin announcement was some desperate pick that came out of nowhere. Had they been doing their jobs, or even perusing The Weekly Standard or right-wing blogs, they’d have known that she was on the list.

Since they didn’t know anything about her, they started making things up. Anything that fit the caricature of a right-wing hypocrite was thrown up with, seemingly, no fact-checking.

They said she opposes contraception, when she said in a campaign debate that she is pro-contraception. They said she cut funding for pregnant teens, when she provided a massive funding hike.

They accused her of cutting funding for mentally disabled children, when she raised it 175 percent over the former administration. She was said to have been a member of the wacky Alaska Independence Party; The New York Times had to run a retraction.

Like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Palin has been deemed one of the GOP’s rising stars. Since it’s national reporters job to cover American politics, their ignorance of about her is distressing.

Most Americans think that the media are cheerleading for Obama, so they’ll punish him for the reporters’ and editors’ sins.

So now he is weighted down with more baggage as he works to convince an important voting bloc that he and his party don’t hold them in contempt.

Liberals, can I ask a favor of you: please continue to bring up the “experience” issue one more time. You’ve been whooped on it over and over, and it’s only helped the McCain campaign. Please tell us a mother of 5 can’t have a career. Please criticize her values for having a daughter who got pregnant. Please continue to fabricate stories. I hope your troops in Alaska find a piece of dirt on her. Something. Anything to stop the bleeding.





Just Discuss It, Please

9 09 2008

We at least need to go there. That’s all. Please read on and see what I mean.

Sarah Palin, Republican nominee for VP. Woman. Mother of 5. And much more. 

This is written primarily to anyone who believes the bible is the primary source of truth. Those of other beliefs may tend to misinterpret the context of what I am saying. But, as a conservative, you must give me credit for not being “married to the GOP.” Just so you know up front. 

The best thing about faith in politics is that the bible is always there as a moral benchmark. Christians should never become so inordinately focused on politics that it becomes the solution to solve our moral dilemmas. Christians are called to be prophetic. And when it comes to politics, that role means speaking biblical truth to all situations and issues, including the focus of this post, the sensitive issue of the role of women. This doesn’t mean I am opposed to Christians being politically active or running for office. It simply means we should participate on the premise of truth, not a party affiliation. 

I am a true conservative in every sense. Most already know how I’ll vote in the upcoming election. And I realize that discussing this issue before the elections runs the risk of alienating a segment of conservatives that may not apply the bible to this specific situation. This issue has never been brought up because we’ve never had a mother of young children nominated for the second highest office in the land. But as Christians, it’s important to promote the good in our candidates while we cling unswervingly to our biblical convictions on important issues. 

Do I think Sarah Palin is unfit to serve because she is a mother of 5? No. Is it wrong for a mother to work? No. Were those on the left wrong to criticize Sarah Palin for running for VP while being a mother of young children? Yes, absolutely, there is a double standard there. Rarely, if ever, do we see this same standard of parenthood applied to mothers in the Democrat party. But conservatives, especially Christians, need to be careful not to create our own double standard. 

What does that mean? It’s easy for Christians to defend Sarah Palin’s candidacy because she is running on the Republican ticket. But what if Sarah Palin, mother of 5, was a Democrat? Would she be receiving the same level of support? Doubtfully. Dr. Albert Mohler, one of only a handful of evangelical leaders to take the lead on this discussion, correctly points out the biblical context for this discussion:

The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility.  I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture.  Then again, that presupposes that women — and men — have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.

(another good commentary on the subject here).

Bottom line: consistency, not condemnation. 

The whole country is talking about this. McCain/Palin received a huge convention-bounce and now lead in some polls. Palin’s speech garnered as many viewers as The One himself did in Denver. It would be easy for Christians to miss the boat and allow a double standard to apply to us here. But, since no one is perfect, we can disagree with a candidate on an issue and still accept their candidacy. In order for Christians to help America understand the biblical worldview in politics, we must apply the standards to everyone regardless of party affiliation.

I don’t doubt that Sarah Palin is an outstanding wife and mother, second only to my wife 🙂  I’ve heard she sleeps maybe four hours per night. It’s not up to us to judge her and criticize her candidacy because she has young children. I believe that she understands her biblical role of wife and mother comes first and her career comes second. She seems to have the blessing of God upon her life and career as evidenced in her life’s journey and convictions. But when those on the outside looking in see Christians fully supporting a mother of 5 who has a newborn with Down’s Syndrome and has a 17 year old daughter who is 5 months pregnant, that message can get cloudy, fast. As they say down south, “That dog won’t hunt!” 

In speaking truth to this situation, there is no right or wrong answer. It’s up to each individual to come to their own conclusion on what God is speaking to them. But we do need to at least address this issue in our minds so we can help others work through it before we just accept it on a universal level. A balance can be found here. I am simply saying we need to look for it instead of assuming it automatically exists. If we compromise the view that we have held for a long time, then the manifestation is hypocrites who seek power more than truth. This could ultimately damage our witness and result in a worse position than when we started.





Why Obama Lost the Election

8 09 2008

Great foreshadowing from Spengler on how Obama will lose the election:

[Barack] Obama will spend the rest of his life wondering why he rejected the obvious road to victory, that is, choosing Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. However reluctantly, Clinton would have had to accept. [John] McCain’s choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza yesterday: rejecting Clinton in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain’s selection was a statement of strength. America’s voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness. 

That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event. Obama is the most talented and persuasive politician of his generation, the intellectual superior of all his competitors, but a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the [Democrat] convention stank of it. Obama’s prospective defeat is entirely of its own making.

Obama evidently chose [Biden] to assuage critics who point to his lack of foreign policy credentials. That was a deadly error, for by appearing to concede the critics’ claim that he knows little about foreign policy, Obama raised questions about whether he is qualified to be president in the first place. He had a winning alternative, which was to pick Clinton. That would have sent a double message: first, that Obama is tough enough to make the slippery Clintons into his subordinates, and second, that he is generous enough to extend a hand to his toughest adversary in the cause of unity. 

McCain doesn’t have a tenth of Obama’s synaptic fire-power, but he is a nasty old sailor who knows when to come about for a broadside. Given Obama’s defensive, even wimpy selection of a running-mate, McCain’s choice was obvious. He picked the available candidate most like himself: a maverick with impeccable reform credentials, a risk-seeking commercial fisherwoman and huntress married to a marathon snowmobile racer who carries a steelworkers union card. The Democratic order of battle was to tie McCain to the Bush administration and attack McCain by attacking Bush. With Palin on the ticket, McCain has re-emerged as the maverick he really is. 

So, why didn’t Obama pick the one who could guarantee him victory? One easy reason: Michelle.

Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

The Democratic front-runner’s wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party’s nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

She is One. Angry. Woman.