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.


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.


Finger-Pointing in the Mortgage Crisis

17 09 2008

The mortgage crisis is fully upon us. And there is plenty of finger-pointing going on in Washington. But no one is addressing the core issue here: greed. Some are greedy for power, others money, or even both. But any way you slice it, it’s greed. 

First, a bit of history so we know how we got here. Nancy Pelosi is insisting that Democrats are faultless in the mortgage crisis. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.


Barack Obama is towing the party line ignoring facts as well. 

When the White House is hostile to any kind of oversight, corporations cut corners and consumers pay the price.

But the truth is that the Bush administration foresaw the bubble bursting and proposed tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government-subsidized “companies.” Side note: isn’t that an oxymoron? As the NY Times reported in 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Gasp! How could all this blame be placed on the Bush administration then? Who was blocking this legislation? We read:

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The Bush administration’s mistake was they didn’t treat the problem with enough urgency. If Bush applied the same amount of pressure as he did the War on Terror, he could have gotten more cooperation from Democrats. And he didn’t have any “false intelligence” to worry about. These numbers weren’t lying. 

The Democrats biggest mistake was ignorance for the sake of blame in order to preserve power. 

But the American consumer is not exempt either. Even though the government was willing to loan money to people who had no business borrowing it, we should have exercised better wisdom than simply jumping on the greed train. Especially Christians. 

Christians should know better than to store of treasures on earth. Certainly we need to have a home and God want us to have a nice, clean place to live. But when the average home has increased from 1,600 square feet to 2,200 square feet in the last several years while the average family size has decreased, why do we need more room for less people? This is called greed. Greed is not only unbiblical, but it also effects non-believers as well. When people put their own desires above others, society loses. 

Greed by American consumers. And greed by politicians. A sure fire way to shoot a hole in the housing bubble. This is not solely a financial crisis, it is a moral crisis. I believe that Jesus is Lord over all of life and that His followers, Christians, need to speak biblical truth to the all issues, but most importantly these pressing situations. There is no biblical-secular divide with some areas off limits to Scripture. The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it. The Church needs to speak up here and point a way out of this situation, at least in an emotional, spiritual, and moral sense, if not a financial sense. People are scared in God’s eyes and their jobs are on the line. We’re starting to reap from the greed we’ve sown. We need to call people to put their hope in God.

“Faith-Based” Separation

2 07 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

Video: Left Bellyaching Over Dobson Reaction to Obama Speech

24 06 2008

The Left is all up in arms over Dr. James Dobson’s statements today criticizing Barack Obama of distorting the Bible. 

[redlasso id=”c45b5731-e2f1-4aae-83ca-5893e77016ed”]

Here is the AP release:

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination…”

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said. “… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” labeling it “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?” Dobson said. “What he’s trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.”

Audio of Dobson’s broadcast here

The, uh, “Reverend” Barry Lynn of Americans United moans:

“Dobson is an extremist who wants the government to impose his fundamentalist viewpoint. He simply cannot accept the fact that America is a diverse nation that welcomes people of all faiths and none. His tirade today is deplorable and probably the most insensitive of his career.

“Our Constitution mandates the separation of religion and government,” Lynn concluded. “That means each of us is free to follow our own consciences. Dobson has no right to set himself up as some sort of spiritual dictator who gets to make personal decisions for the rest of us.”

Lynn first statement is mostly true. But if Lynn thinks Dobson is an extremist, then that label would extend to nearly every Founder as well. In truth, it is Lynn who is the extremist. He quotes only a handful of Founders, usually out of context, to suit his agenda. His second sentence is completely inaccurate. Dobson most certainly understands the same thing the Founders understood about the diversity of religions in America. This country is made up predominately of Christians and has always been that way. Other religions are welcome to freely worship here, but Christianity is to be encouraged by the government, according to quotes and speeches during the Constitutional convention. And the third claim is a baseless opinion. Any Christian who understands the Bible should consider it more deplorable to be a hypocrite than a citizen merely criticizing the social stances of a presidential candidate. 

His second paragraph is demonstrably wrong and couldn’t be further from the truth. 

Here is another extremist liberal who wrote a response letter to Dr. Dobson. How do they come up with this stuff?

Dear Mr. Dobson,

I heard that you believe that Obama is distorting the Bible, and I must say that is a pretty devastating attack coming from a person like you who would obviously never distort the Bible. I mean everybody knows that the Bible is a book that is entirely focused on stem cell research, gay sex, and Sponge Bob cartoons. Look at Jesus, he was clearly a Republican. Never mind all that crap he said about peace and helping the poor and stuff, that is all outdated crap now. If he were still alive today he would clearly be calling to go blow some Iranian ass to kingdom come, and instead of giving aid to the poor there is no doubt he would be pushing to stop a minimum wage increase and working to ensure that our CEOs take home even more money. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that if Jesus were alive today he would be waterboarding people for America, and he would be singing along to a Lee Greenwood song while he did it.

We all know that all that liberal crap that Jesus spewed in the Bible is distorting what Jesus’ position would be today so we ignore those parts people and focus on the parts that are important. Like the parts about Jesus hanging out with prostitutes, a tradition that many Republicans have followed him on.

You sure do have an interesting interpretation of the Bible, but I am sure that people will take you seriously when you criticize Obama for distorting the Bible. But that is not all you criticize Obama for Mr. Dobson, you also tell us he has a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution.

You are completely opposed to those fruitcake interpretations though, you demand a barley cake interpretation. As Ezekiel 4:12-15 tells us “thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man.” The dung that cometh of man Mr. Dobson, that is certainly a verse of the Bible that you have lived up to very well, and that is no distortion.


A Citizen

I’ll admit that Jesus is not a Republican nor a Democrat. But He is far more conservative-minded than liberal. For example, all that stuff in the bible about helping the poor are commandments to individual believers, not governments. When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” he laid the basic foundation for conservative government. I realize that reading the bible in context is difficult for liberals, but it is necessary. Side note: one wonders since liberals are unable to grasp biblical concepts in their correct context, how much worse is their interpretation of the Constitution? 

I also wonder if the letter writer is aware of the number of times in biblical history God led His people into war and wiped out entire nations. Didn’t think so. 

So I’d probably be correct in assuming the writer has no clue what the bible says about making a profit for one’s work. Look at Matthew 25:15-29, a parable Jesus told about risk, entrepreneurs, and profit. Verse 28 is the key verse:

28″ ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 

Jesus could have done the liberal thing and had the servant divide the talent (worth more than $1,000) evenly between the other two, after a 40% tax of course. Or he could have had the servant distribute the money to the poor. But Jesus is not a liberal. He believes His followers should receive a reward for their work. 

Oh, and for the record, Jesus IS alive today. He’s just doesn’t have an earthly address. If you’re going to criticize someone, at least get their corporeal status correct. 

Others: Hot Air.

“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.