A Christian Response to President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama

5 11 2008

Well, it’s the weekend after Barack Obama won the election. I have compiled a collection of responses from a Christian standpoint to his election with some of my own comments sprinkled in. 

After John McCain’s concession speech, several Christian supporters of Obama immediately began quoting Romans 13:1-7. 

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

My first thought was to wonder if they would have had the same response if Obama had lost. If not, then the verse probably isn’t in correct context. I certainly did not have this particular verse locked and loaded to fire at Obama supporters had he lost. I assumed most knew that in American, power belongs to the people. The people temporarily loan it to elected leaders who do not rule over them. They are in place to interpret the Constitution in two areas: condone good and punish evil. Government has overstepped in bounds in the last 200+ years, but presidents who focus on these two aforementioned biblical roles are the most successful. For Americans, these authorities referenced in Romans is not a person, but the Constitution, which is amendable, by the way, by the people. It can also represent an employer or another entity but is not applicable in situations when the authority tramples on the Word of God, which Obama does. 

Also, as a bonus to my precious friends who fired Romans 13 across my bow, I respond with Psalms 2:1-4:

1 Why do the nations conspire  
       and the peoples plot in vain?

 2 The kings of the earth take their stand 
       and the rulers gather together 
       against the LORD 
       and against his Anointed One. 

 3 “Let us break their chains,” they say, 
       “and throw off their fetters.”

 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; 
       the Lord scoffs at them.

Some said this verse in Psalms was out of context. It’s hard to take a Psalms out of context. Both verses are fully applicable. But I don’t think you can pluck one verse out and quote it to a group of people with whom you have moral agreements with, but variance on a list of political issues. 

And it was clear in this past election which candidate was mocking God: the one who couldn’t define life. 

James White — pastor, apologist, debater, author, and blogger — is on the same page in this video he made the day after the election:

For those wondering what conservatives do next, Michelle Malkin has some good advice:

We stand up for our principles, as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime.

We keep the faith.

We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them. We defend them.

We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.

Several Christians expressed disappointment with “hate speech” and “racism” they had supposedly seen from fellow Christians on social networking sites and in emails. Now, certainly some Christians calling Obama the anti-christ or islamic is a hit below the belt and does not measure up to the standard of perfection placed on Christians. But Obama’s election just helps to show how easy it will be for the anti-christ to deceive the masses and gain such a large unwavering allegiance. Besides, if Christians would bother to study their bible a little, they would realize the anti-christ is not a person. 

Here is the real racism and hate speech. And it’s coming from Obama supporters:

There is a new national slogan/anthem catching on among America’s youth. It’s a popular rap song, a t-shirt, and a taunting chant: “MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK.”

Go ahead and Google it. They’re blasting it on the streets of Chicago, saying it like a prayer in Durham, singing it on campus, and putting it on their kids’clothes in Harlem.

mypresidentisblack1

A sampling of news from around the country after Election Day:

Outside, cars drove across campus, honking triumphal horns as passengers leaned out windows heralding the news of Obama’s unprecedented win. Students giddily repeated the refrain, “My president is black.”

***

You couldn’t find a single copy of the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times on newsstands or in boxes anywhere in the city, from Hyde Park up to Evanston. And at least two tricked-out cars on shiny rims that rolled slowly down Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in the historic Bronzeville neighborhood on the city’s gritty South Side were blasting what appeared to be the city’s new unofficial hip-hop presidential anthem: Young Jeezy’s “My President Is Black.”

***

The energy around Benedict’s campus was palpable Wednesday, as students walking to and from classes excitedly discussed the election, some shouting “President Obama!” and singing lyrics to a popular song about Obama by the rapper Young Jeezy, “My President is Black.” 

La Shawn Barber exposes the new racism:

It’s a proud moment for many blacks, to be sure, but having a black man in the White House will not motivate black Americans to wait until marriage to have babies, to stop killing their babies (and at three times the rate of white women), or to stop uttering the word racism whenever they don’t get their way.

Of course, Obama never promised that his presidency would have any effect on these things.

As long as families (the foundation of society) are in shambles, conditions won’t improve much. But with Obama in office, white liberals can feel good about themselves and blacks can feel proud, fatherless children and dead babies be damned.

I don’t want to hear any more complaining from any black Americans about how they can’t succeed, but if La Shawn is right, this election only takes it to a new level.

Advertisements




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.





When Black and White Fade to Grey

6 10 2008

This song is from Casting Crowns and is called Slow Fade. It’s about marital faithfulness but the principle can be applied to all of life: “It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray.” 

Christianity is not a religion that is practiced. But it’s more than a relationship with Jesus Christ too. It’s a worldview that believes there is no area to which God has not spoken. Some areas, He speaks directly (life, marriage, etc) and are black and white. Other areas (education, healthcare, etc) are gray and require biblical application of principles to discern what God’s view is.

To simplify things, believers don’t get to decide what is black and white. That is what the bible is for. But many liberals Christians today, just like the Pharisees did, are challenging the very principles we should be agreeing and standing on. In essence, all believers should read the same bible, agree on black and white issues and debate on the best method to take a stand while showing love. Instead, Christians are forced to regress by modern-day Pharisees to discuss what sin is and by what standard we arrive at the decision.

During His time on earth, Jesus was hardest on the Pharisees, the group of “liberal believers” that challenged his principles while the disciples and other believers were discussing the best methods with Him. Now, it may appear to some that Jesus didn’t love the Pharisees because of how harshly He dealt with them. But He loved them just as much. He just couldn’t tolerate them leading His flock astray. But that is what liberal Christians have done to the body of Christ today. So when Christians take a stand on an issue, it shouldn’t be misconstrued as “hate.” It’s love in action. A different love than… say, with orphans, but love nonetheless. A love that is needed from Christians in a time when our fellow brethren are turning against us. 

Here are the lyrics:

Be careful little eyes what you see
It’s the second glance that ties your hands as darkness pulls the strings
Be careful little feet where you go
For it’s the little feet behind you that are sure to follow

It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray 
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
It’s a slow fade, it’s a slow fade

Be careful little ears what you hear
When flattery leads to compromise, the end is always near
Be careful little lips what you say
For empty words and promises lead broken hearts astray

It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray 
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day

The journey from your mind to your hands
Is shorter than you’re thinking
Be careful if you think you stand
You just might be sinking

It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
Daddies never crumble in a day
Families never crumble in a day

Oh be careful little eyes what see
Oh be careful little eyes what you see
For the Father up above is looking down in love
Oh be careful little eyes what you see

May we have the courage to accept principles and debate methods, even when it’s unpopular.





Video: More Evidence Implicating Democrats

1 10 2008

Democrats have been quick to attempt to share blame with Republicans for the mortgage crisis. If that were true, wouldn’t something have surfaced by now? 

Ed Morrissey breaks it down:

By 2004, all of the elements of the current financial collapse had been in place for several years.  The aggressive approach to enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) started under Bill Clinton in 1998, and the seemingly endless appetite for paper by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had turned massive amounts of bad loans into mortgage-backed securities to spread their cancer throughout the system.  In 2004, a year after the Bush administration tried to tighten regulation and oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress was told yet again that disaster loomed.  The Democratic response is instructive to seeing who really sat back and allowed this collapse to occur. 

Highlights of this eight-minute video:

Maxine Waters: Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasn’t broke.  Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines.  [Raines would barely avoid prosecution for fraud.]

Gregory Meeks: … I’m just pissed off at OFHEO [the regulators trying to warn Congress of insolvency at the GSEs], because if it wasn’t for you, I don’t think we’d be here in the first place.  … There’s been nothing that indicated that’s wrong with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own … The question that then comes up is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs.

Lacy Clay: This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.

Barney Frank: I don’t see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems.

Take a good look through this video in 2004, and ask yourself who on this panel wanted more regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and which members spent their time attacking the regulators.  When Barack Obama talks at debates about how the past eight years of regulatory laissez-faire created the problem, he may want to review the transcripts of these hearings and note that Democrats repeatedly undermined regulators and called them everything from incompetent to bigoted in their rush to keep the status quo at Fannie and Freddie.

The Democrats attacking the regulator here didn’t do so out of some deep conviction against government regulation.  They wanted to keep the gravy train rolling on questionable mortgages in order to endear themselves to the working class, and didn’t mind smearing the OFHEO regulator as a racist in order to succeed.  The Republicans who wanted more oversight didn’t demand it as socialists looking for a government takeover of the financial sector, either, but because they saw the impending disaster looming for Fannie Mae.

I don’t suppose liberals have any similar evidence (otherwise, we would have already seen it) pointing to Republicans. 

It’s a shame that:

  1. Alternative media (blogs, talk radio) has to pound away at this for over a week before Americans begin to get the message that Democrats are to blame for this mess.
  2. Many don’t understand the importance of how we got here and who is to blame.  It’s more than simply a political “blame game.” We don’t want put power and money back in the hands of those that got us here in the first place. 
I find it quite hypocritical that liberals want to dismiss proper blame for this crisis (which all falls on them) while they’ve spent the last 5 (five!) years blaming Republicans for allegedly “lying” about the War on Terror. When Democrats get on board with the war, like the rest of America, then maybe they’ll be justified in calling for non-partisan blame assignment. But Republicans are already past it anyway. As witnessed by the Senate bailout bill, Republicans have risen above partisan politics and have done what is best for America, even if they didn’t like everything in the bill. And that is something Democrats haven’t been able to do in 5 years.




Video: How We Got Here – The Mortgage Crisis

26 09 2008

A few clarifications: This video blames Democrats for how we got here, which is accurate in many ways. Republicans, though, are not completely off the hook. They had a majority in both houses of Congress when they warned off the dangers and did not put their foot down like they did on the War on Terror, for example. 

As I said before, greed led to this bursting of the bubble. 

– Democrats are guilty of getting the ball rolling.

– Republicans are guilty of not stopping it.

– The American people are guilty of believing the illusion of our rapid-rising equity to say anything. 

Understanding how we got here is not simply hindsight. We need to keep it in mind so we don’t repeat the same mistakes. What do we do now that the bill has come due for our foolish living standards?

– Democrats need to pressure Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to recuse themselves from any solution-making process. 

– Republicans need to demand new legislation exclude government’s false idea of lending. No more GSEs, no more CRAs. Just qualified oversight and practical regulation. 

– The American people need to buy within their means and learn to stop living on so much credit.

Others: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin.





BFF’s: Planned Parenthood and YouTube

6 09 2008

Planned Parenthood’s BFF, YouTube, last week tried to bail the racist, pro-murder group out of hot water by removing four videos. None of which violate any of its terms of use. 

YouTube, the popular Internet-video website, blocked four videos from the pro-life student organization Live Action over the past two weeks, saying that the videos contained “inappropriate content”. YouTube gave neither advance warning nor specific reasons for why the videos were removed, and has not responded to Live Action’s request to cease censorship and to unblock the videos for public viewing.

The content in these videos is not violent, profane, or sexually explicit.

DESCRIPTION: PP Part 1: Video plays audio and transcripts of Planned Parenthood of Ohio and Idaho accepting racist donations from callers to target Blacks for abortion. This video was removed from Live Action’s account, but remains on another user’s channel:

View the remaining removed videos here

Google CEO Eric Schmidt asked on-camera September 4th why the Live Action Films videos were removed from YouTube. It’s a bit hard to hear, but you can see him squirm and throw out the usual “I don’t know enough to comment” excuse:

YouTube has a history of helping pro-abortion pro-murder individuals and groups:

July 2, 2008
YouTube.com, in what the Population Research Institute (PRI) is calling a case of blatant censorship, has removed a video from its website for the sole reason that it criticizes a pro-abortion journalist. (source)

April 2008
” Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content.'” Google policy does not prohibit advertisements for abortion clinics or pro-choice sites.” (source)

Feb. 19, 2008
YouTube also removed a video produced by the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood. It has since been restored. (source)

Nov. 12, 2007
At Google, we have a bias in favor of people’s right to free expression,” Brand said. “Google is not and should not become the central arbiter of what does and does not appear on the Web. (source)
“We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News, although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable”. (source)

October 2007
” Google banned advertisements from Maine U.S. Senator Susan Collins’ reelection campaign, citing its trademark policy. The ads contained the words “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” At the time, Google permitted the use of company names like Exxon and Wal-Mart in other non-sanctioned advertising, and an ad running at the time of the article read “Keep Blackwater in Iraq?” (source)

June, 2007
World Ahead president Eric M. Jackson tells the Sinclair network’s evening news that the Google Adwords editorial policy seems to have a liberal bias.

May 10, 2007
“Shareholders of Google voted down an anti-censorship proposal for the company. CEO Eric Schmidt and founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal. Together they hold 66.2 percent of Google’s total shareholder voting power.” (source)

Oct. 12, 2006
Don’t think it matters? Consider that, according to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats. (source)

Oct. 12, 2006
“YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration.”
“It has in the past censored various Christian-themed ads, but allowed porn ads.”WorldNetDaily Article

Oct. 9, 2006
“company took a scrub bucket to some questionable political graffiti on its servers, including a video entry from the doyenne of right-wing blogs, Michelle Malkin.” New York Times Article
See the Malkin video that was removed.

May, 2006
In early 2006 Google removed several news sites from its news search engine because complaints were received about various articles that were critical of Islam. (source)

“It is discriminatory for YouTube to selectively censor material that clearly does not contain inappropriate content,” states Live Action President Lila Rose. “We will continue to apply pressure on YouTube until it restores the videos.”





Republican Rock Star

4 09 2008

Sarah Palin is a rock star

According to Nielsen, 37.2 million people watched the speech on six networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News Channel, and MSNBC). That is just 1.1 million less than watched Obama’s speech last Thursday night. 

And Obama was on 10 networks too.

Compare that to the estimated 24 million who watched Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden’s speech last Wednesday night.

And here’s the biography video of Palin we didn’t get to see last night.