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?





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.





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.





Video: Proof Obama Distorts Bible

27 06 2008

Earlier this week, liberals went off their rocker defending Obama’s biblical worldview against Dr. James Dobson’s comments that he distorts the bible. Dobson was referring to an Obama speech two years ago, which had liberals scrambling to come up with a website defending Obama. The result was JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe. Today, we learned that an Obama campaign worker was instrumental in the launch of that website. 

Caldwell, who is affiliated with the website JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com, initially told OneNewsNow that the website was operated by Matthew 25, a political action committee working with Obama supporters. However, upon investigation, it was found that the site was actually registered to Alyssa Martin, an intern in the Obama campaign’s “religious affairs” department. The domain registration has since been changed to Pastor Caldwell’s name.

In an earlier interview, Caldwell told OneNewsNow he did not know Alyssa Martin, but on Thursday afternoon admitted the intern had been helping him set up the website. He also reported that to his knowledge, she is no longer with the Obama campaign.

It is not surprising to learn that an Obama staffer was involved in the setup of this website. It pairs Dobson statements with Obama statements that do not correspond. It gives the appearance that Obama is responding to Dobson, when in fact, the reverse is the truth. Just as Obama plucks scriptures out of context, he has his staff painting an a false image of other Christians in an attempt to hide his wolf’s clothing from the sheep. 

In addition, on Father’s Day, Barack Obama made a speech at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago, Illinois, in which he said that “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” I am thrilled that Sen. Obama believes in the responsibility of fathers, but his voting record contradicts his own statements. He consistently has voted to end life after conception. 

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council recorded a video response to this message in which he asks Senator Obama: if my responsibility as a father began at conception, isn’t that when the lives of my children began?

Of course, Obama’s answer will be that he personally disagrees with child-killing, but the choice should remain legal for women. This may pass as a convincing argument to a liberal, who has no absolutes, and creates values to mold to any given issue. But to a Christian, you cannot twist a moral issue into a political one without distorting the bible. The bible is very clear that murder is a sin. And since most of our Constitution was based on biblical values, the taking of innocent life is illegal. There is a biblical mandate for Christians to defend the defenseless. Obama’s distorted interpretation of the bible results in a personal view and political action that contradict one another. 





Fallout of Dobson Remarks

25 06 2008

Liberals still have their undies in a wad since yesterday…they couldn’t have slept well like that. Yesterday, Dr. James Dobson accurately noted on his radio broadcast that Barack Obama has been distorting the bible in an effort to steal a few evangelical votes away from John McCain. Obama’s response? A dagger:

“I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.”

Wow, Barack, don’t overwhelm us with any biblical justification as to why you claim to be a Christian while voting for child-killing. Oh wait, there isn’t any. It’s called political expediency. You say you are a Christian in an effort to bring more evangelicals to your side. But you don’t vote like one, otherwise you’d lose the support of your party. But really, don’t hold back, just a one-liner, that’s great. 

Obama supporters also responded to Dobson.

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama, said Tuesday he belongs to a group of religious leaders who, working independently of Obama’s campaign, launched a Web site to counter Dobson at JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe. The site highlights statements from Obama and Dobson and asks visitors to compare them.

Caldwell said he has great respect for Dobson’s advocacy for families, but said the criticism of Obama was “a bit over the top” and “crossed the line.”

What Caldwell means is that Dobson’s remarks did not fall in line with his humanist-diluted worldview. Obama’s belief is that Leviticus cannot be used to call homosexuality a sin because the same book includes a passage calling the consumption of shellfish a sin. With the exception of a new, baby Christian, any believer of just one year of faith understands that the ceremonial dietary laws were clearly and emphatically overturned under the New Covenant, whereas the commands against homosexual behavior (and other sexual sins) were not.

Now, if James Dobson used his radio broadcast to call Obama’s salvation into question, that would have been over the top and out of line. But he did not. And neither do I. But what I do dispute is Obama’s claim that his worldview is biblical. If it was, he would not allow himself to support liberal social policies. In the mind of a Christian, social issues take priority over economic and defense. Obama may be a born-again Christian (that is between him and God), but his support for liberal social policies disqualifies him from receiving the vote of any Christian. Any Christian who can justify the vote for someone as socially liberal as Obama has either been deceived into believing the remaining issues are more important than life, or worse and far more likely, they believe Obama’s lie that his interpretation of the bible is godly. 





“Obamacans” Blasted

23 06 2008

Last week, I wrote about several formerly conservative black leaders that were considering voting for Obama simply because his skin color presented a historic moment. Those “Obamacans,” Republican fans of Obama, were blasted by at least two other black, conservative leaders, whom I applaud for being able to see past their race and understand that voting in America is about the character and values of a candidate, not skin color. 

Two black conservatives — one a pastor, the other a leader of an urban ministry — say they can’t understand why a number of black Republicans have publicly said they are considering voting for Barack Obama this election.

Ken Hutcherson, an African-American pastor in suburban Seattle, says black conservatives who are supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama must remember what they have been saying about race for decades. Hutcherson says he understands being proud of a black man, but he notes that for years black conservative leaders have screamed that it is not about color — it is about the content and character of one’s heart. “… And some of these same guys seem to be forgetting that that’s what we’re supposed to be doing now,” says Hutcherson.

Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny in Los Angeles, concurs. He says he doesn’t care about being part of an historic moment. “There’s no way that I can vote for Barack Obama simply because of a historic moment and he is a black man. That doesn’t make sense to me,” he says. “We should judge people based on character and not color or historic moment.”

Both Hutcherson and Peterson echo my notion that these black “Republicans” are not true conservatives, nor are they defenders of any Republican value. They are RINO’s. And unfortunately, RINO’s act more like liberals in the Republican party than conservative Democrats act like conservatives in the Democrat party. For example, pro-lifer, Bob Casey, who defeated Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania’s hotly contested Senate seat in 2006, ran on a pro-life platform jerking the rug out from underneath Santorum’s entire campaign strategy. He then, no doubt with Nancy Pelosi’s gun in his back, endorsed Barack Obama during Pennsylvania’s Democrat primary. Now, why else would a pro-life senator endorse the most liberal presidential nominee in American history? 

Conservatism takes effort. Liberalism is the default thought pattern we’ll assume if we don’t stop and actually think about what is occurring. Humanism (of which liberalism is a pillar), teaches that man is inherently good. It says that evil is not natural to man, but that evil exists in the world as a result of “cultural influences.” No liberal can explain then, how evil infiltrates a culture, since cultures are made up of people and people are all good. 

This explains how RINO’s effect conservatism in a negative way and conservative Democrats are ineffective influencing liberals. If more Americans don’t come out of the trance that Obama, The Pied Piper, has them under, he will play his flute all the way to the White House. By then, it will be too late and the “Change We Can Believe In” will not the be change we all had in mind. And an “I told you so,” won’t pacify the conservatives who were trying to sound the alarm. 





Video: How to Speak “Democrat”

20 06 2008

Hat tip: Hot Air

A lesson by Rep. Thad McCotter.

This is perfect, although, it’s thin ice for another politician to be giving the lecture. It illustrates the point that liberalism is all about emotion (watch the “Democrat” words) and NO facts (watch translation words). 

Transcript below the fold. 

Read the rest of this entry »