More Broken Promises

24 11 2008

Last week, I discussed Barack Obama’s leftward shift of his party despite the perceived claims to govern from the center. I also said there would be more. Here it is:

Barack Obama told voters during the presidential election that he wanted to work with both sides of the abortion debate to reduce the number of abortions. Yet, over the weekend, he picked a top staffer for one of the biggest pro-abortion groups to become his communications director.

The selection of Ellen Moran, the executive director of Emily’s List, to become the White House communications director makes it clear that the only agenda Obama plans to communicate as president is more abortions.

Moran hails from Emily’s List, a group whose sole mission is to regularly spend tens of millions of dollars on promoting pro-abortion candidates for office.

FRC responds:

As things progress it is becoming clear the so-called “middle ground” on abortion that we were told Barack Obama was pursuing in his campaign might elude him now that he is President-elect. Obama continues to fill key positions with politicians and activists who have radical pro-abortion records. The latest, Ellen Moran, the executive director of EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion political action committee, who will be the face and voice of the new administration as the President’s spokesperson. As the Washington Post put it, “A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY’s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial-birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.” Ms. Moran’s fealty to abortion is so strong that after the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion (a “medical procedure” where scissors and a suction tube are used to kill a partially delivered infant) she saw it as a call to arms to raise more funds for her group to work towards overturning the decision and cut off funding for politicians who voted to ban the gruesome practice. 

None of this comes as any surprise for those who actually studied Obama’s record and possess the ability to understand what a candidate means he says determining when life begins is “above his pay grade” and not wanting to see his own daughter be “punished with a baby.” The real question is, what will “Obama-logists” (Christians who voted for Obama) have to say. So far, their silence has been deafening.





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.





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.”





What Happens When Christians Create a Theological Smorgasbord

19 08 2008

I’ve heard the notion by the Christian left that Jesus was a “liberal.” But He wasn’t liberal to the degree that He would support abortion, as Barack Obama supporter, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, purports.

From last Wednesday’s The O’Reilly Factor (8/13/08):

O’REILLY: … Barack Obama has been the most progressive voice in the country, more than Barbara Boxer, more than Nancy Pelosi, in supporting abortion on demand, whether it’s in the third trimester, whether it’s partial-birth abortion. No matter what it is, he says, “Yes.” So – How do you reconcile finding Jesus with the being the most pro-abortion politician in the country? Don’t you want to know that?

HILL: I think he’s made that very clear. In fact, he’s probably been most clear on that point. There are different schools of theological understanding, many of which believe that the Bible is not something that should be read fundamentally, but —

O’REILLY: The question is simple. (crosstalk) Would Jesus be as progressive on abortion – does he believe Jesus would, based upon his knowledge of theology – as he [Obama] is?

HILL: Absolutely. I think, absolutely.

O’REILLY: You believe Jesus would say, “Partial-birth abortion: No problem”?

HILL: I think Jesus would be even more radical than all the candidates who are —

O’REILLY (incredulous): On this issue?

HILL: On this issue and on all these other issues. I think a fundamentalist understanding of the pro-life/pro-choice debate is misguided and misses the point. And I think Barack Obama understands this kind of thing — (inaudible) close to the center —

O’REILLY (incredulous): That would be a stunning dissertation if the Senator would give it. And I would absolutely want to hear it.

HILL: And I think he would. I think he will!

Jesus was liberal only in the sense that He gave freely of what He possessed. Translation: He gave salvation to anyone willing to accept Him as their personal savior. But He certainly didn’t use government to dole out government programs stealing from some to give to others. And He definitely would not have supported abortion of any type. Best of all, Hill offers no biblical ideas to support his ridiculous assertion. 

This is the result of a worldview held by Obama, Hill and other leftists that tweaks biblical ideals to meet a political agenda. Just pick and choose the convictions that fit your lifestyle. As we saw in last weekend’s visit with Rick Warren, Obama has no idea when life even begins…it’s “above his pay grade.” Actually, it’s well within his pay grade. Because he’s the one putting it there. Life is actullay something outside the realm of all our pay grades. Any justification for the purposeful taking of innocent life is playing God, something we should all tread lightly upon.  Sadly, Barack Obama and his supporters see life as a political issue that politicians can legislate their version of liberalism upon while simultaneously claiming Jesus’ liberalism is synonymous with their own. They couldn’t be any more wrong on such an elementary issue.





The Life Factor

18 08 2008

Most Americans want change from the next president. But change is pretty much a given no matter who is elected. The entire mantra of change being trumpeted by Barack Obama implies one of two things: Bush is running again in 2008 or McCain will be Bush 3.0, neither of which is true. It’s not wrong for Americans to desire change from their next president. We just need to understand what we’re getting. And with McCain we have a very good idea. But with Obama, we have no idea, with the exception of how his views on life will translate into politics. Last Saturday, Barack Obama and John McCain visited with evangelical Christian, Rick Warren, pastor of the mega-church Saddleback Church in California and their answers on life spoke volumes on how they will legislate life.

Senator Obama (D-Illinois) told Pastor Rick Warren he was not sure when an unborn baby should be considered a human life worth protecting. “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade,” said Obama.

It’s obvious anything above the pay grade of President of the United States of America can only mean God, whom Obama believes in. How puzzling that he doesn’t just listen to what He has to say about it then. I wonder where Obama does say life begins. If not conception, and obviously not birth, any murder of a person of any age could then be classed as a “botched abortion.” Fortunately, moral trends in America appear to be swinging back in favor of life as seen in cases of murder of a pregnant mother being sentenced for taking two lives. More:

Obama contends he believes in Roe v. Wade not because he is pro-abortion, but because women do not make decisions about abortion “casually.” He also suggested Americans can find common ground on ways to prevent “unwanted pregnancies.”

No amount of planning an abortion morally justifies it. Obama continues to paint himself into moral corners as he attempts to appeal to voters right of center. Obama’s views bring to mind a warning from author, Henri Nouwen’s book, In the Name of Jesus: “What makes the temptation of power so semmingly irresistable?  Maybe it is that power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.” This describes Obama’s campaign perfectly. He believes it’s not up to him to legislate when life begins, but each individual can. And he believes it’s up to government (led by a Christian president) to give everything to the poor at the expense of others as opposed to the biblical teaching of individual believers to each do their part to help the poor. 

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on the other hand, strongly declared that he believes a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception. “I have a twenty-five year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies,” he stated. “That’s my commitment.”

Much better. No matter how appealing Obama’s “change” might appear to Christians, there is simply no justification for voting for him. Life is the most important issue, and the easiest to define. Any candidate failing this elementary check point, is not fit to be president of a country whose Declaration of Independence declares life first among its unalienable rights provided by God. Especially when that candidate doesn’t care what God says about life.





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.