From National Review On LIne

Comments

20

In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”

Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.

Advertisement

Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.)

Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade. Thus, in his 2004 Senate campaign, and then during the course of the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that he would have supported a law like the 2002 federal born-alive statute, which stated explicitly that it could not be used to dispute the legal status of fetuses prior to their birth.

In committee in 2003, however, Obama voted against a version of the Illinois bill that contained the same protection included in the federal bill (which passed 98–0 in the U.S. Senate). Thus, Obama’s tenuous constitutional argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

One other excuse for Obama’s opposition to the Illinois bill has been proffered: that the final version of the bill was coupled with another piece of legislation that imposed criminal or civil consequences for doctors who did not properly treat infants who were covered by the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Obama and others deemed this second bill unacceptable. However, this doesn’t begin to defend Obama’s vote on the first bill.

As Ponnuru pointed out back in 2008, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact admitted the above facts as such, but have disputed whether they constitute “legalizing infanticide”; FactCheck argued that that question remains a value judgment. Since the Illinois bill would have provided legal protection for born-alive infants who had not been protected before, by opposing it, Obama voted to continue to make it legal to kill them. Thus, the only question remaining in order to determine whether it was “infanticide” is: Were the subjects of the bill fetuses or were they infants? In order for them not to be considered infants, one would have to contend that an unviable prematurely born baby is not an infant — a claim few would be willing to make. And yet, Obama’s votes, three times over the course of three years, indicate that he believes that fetuses who have been born alive, but have not yet reached the age of viability, are not human persons worthy of protection by our laws. Such a position on abortion is, to say the least, extreme, and deserves attention.

Which leads to the second question Gingrich raised: Have the media questioned Obama’s position on the Illinois infanticide bill? Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple has turned up a few media references to President Obama’s extreme abortion stances from the 2008 campaign: two CNN segments discussing his record, including the Illinois legislation specifically; one instance in a debate, where John McCain raised the question of Obama’s record, and he defended his position on the Illinois bill; and one interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, in which Obama was queried on partial-birth abortion, though not the Illinois legislation specifically.

The attention was most intense in August of 2008, after the NRLC managed to generate national debate about Obama’s position on the Illinois bill. Obama was asked about it during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he offered a thoroughly deceptive response to the question, saying, “Here’s a situation where folks are lying” about his position. However, Obama was the one lying: He told the interviewer, David Brody, that he opposed the bill because of its threat to Roe v. Wade, and that existing Illinois law already protected infants who were born alive. As we have seen, the first assertion is implausible; the second is just plain false.

This seems to be the one instance in which a journalist asked candidate Obama directly about his support for the bill, and he was unfortunately let off, even by a conservative reporter, with his mendacious explanation.

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times reported on the controversy, noting the points the NRLC had raised about Obama’s inconsistent and extreme positions. The Times, citing sources on both sides, explored Obama’s claim that he opposed the final Illinois bill because of its unacceptable companion bill. However, Obama’s claim has no solid legal basis: Two different bills are two different bills.

Thus, while one cannot say, as Gingrich did, that the media have literally never questioned Obama’s extreme record on abortion, we can certainly say that there has not been a sufficiently revealing discussion of his views. An honest appraisal would depict him as having voted repeatedly to protect a form of infanticide. Instead, the media have willingly accepted explanations that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

And they deserve scrutiny, for two reasons. First, as explained above, Obama has offered deceptive explanations of his own pro-abortion legislative work, while simultaneously accusing his pro-life opponents of being dishonest. More important, Obama’s record as a state senator was not merely pro-choice, but radically pro-abortion. His voting record indicates that he does not believe infants deserve protection even once they have emerged from the womb if they are deemed to be below the age of viability, and he did in fact, three times, vote to keep a form of infanticide legal.

— Patrick Brennan is the 2011 William F. Buckley Fellow at National Review.

The Illogic of Obama on Abortion

[The following essay is by a graduate philosophy student, whose name I have withheld, given the possible detriment to his or her career this essay might bring if he or she is identified. No, the academy is not a bastion of political fairness. The author was willing to identity his or her name, but I counseled the person against it. In any event, the logic is flawless and furthers the case against Obama.]

-----------------

Obama on Partial Birth Abortion: Some Reflections on the October 15 Debate

Finally! Obama’s stance on abortion finally came up, but, true to form, McCain missed the opportunity to land punch. That’s not to say that McCain did not try. For all his swinging in the air, McCain just could not touch the ducking-and-diving Obama. McCain brought up Obama’s voting record in the Illinois state senate and rightly pointed out that Obama is no friend to the pro-life movement. More to the point at hand, McCain also pointed out Obama’s resistance to a ban on partial birth abortion. Obama was able to dodge these blows by citing legislation that already protected infants born alive and his favorable attitude toward a ban on partial birth abortion that made an exception for the health of the mother. McCain did his darndest to rebut the “health of the mother” clause, but again to no avail.

Perhaps the following reflections will hit a little harder that McCain’s comments made last night. First, picking up where McCain left off, let’s think about late-term partial birth abortion and a case where the mother’s life is in danger. Picture the following scenario:

A woman goes to visit her Ob/Gyn; she’s eight-months pregnant. The doctor gives the woman a thorough evaluation and decides that there is a [sufficiently] high probability that the woman will die if she either (1) continues the pregnancy or (2) gives birth. The doctor goes on to recommend an abortion because the life of the mother is at risk.

In the third trimester, the only option the doctor has for performing an abortion is a partial birth abortion. We have a case, then, where to prevent (1) the doctor must bring about (2). Either way, the woman will die. Perhaps one can formulate an example where it is merely the “health” of the mother at risk. This does not drastically change the situation. Fetuses in the third trimester of gestation are viable. If, all things being equal, the mother would keep the baby if it were not for the health risk, then why not merely induce labor and keep the baby? Or, if vaginal delivery is the problem, why not do a C-section and keep the baby? In the sever case where the life of the mother is at risk, I see no way of saving that life through partial birth abortion.

Therefore, an exception clause for the life of the mother is unjustified. In a less severe case where the mother’s health is at risk, the fact that there is no significant difference between giving birth to keep the baby and giving birth to abort the baby mitigates against the need for an exception for the health of the mother. In either case, partial birth abortion is an unnecessary practice. Therefore, Obama should not have any qualms about supporting a total ban on partial birth abortion.

Second, McCain failed to mention Obama’s position toward the Freedom of Choice Act. If this were to become law, all restrictions on abortions, including partial birth abortions, would be repealed. Further, the act would provide tax-payer dollars to fund abortions on demand. Obama has said that one of the first things he would do as President would be sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law. Two things Obama said in last night’s debate are relevant. First, he claimed that he would like to see less abortions take place. Second, he claimed that he supported a ban on partial birth abortion (again, as long as the exclusion for the health of the mother was included in the bill). I think the best way to highlight the problem is to give a couple of deductive arguments.

1. Obama supports a ban on partial birth abortion (given the appropriate exclusions).
2. Obama will sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.
3. If the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law, then a ban on partial birth abortions would be impossible.
4. A ban on partial birth abortions will be impossible with Obama as President (from (2) and (3)).
5. Obama supports a ban on partial birth abortion (given the appropriate exclusions) and he will make such a ban impossible as President (from (1) and (4)).
Statement (5) is a contradiction. One cannot at the same time support a ban and support legislation that would prevent such a ban from taking place. Therefore, either (1), (2), or (3) is false. (3) is true. That makes the culprit either (1) or (2). Obama said both (1) and (2), albeit on different occasions, and I leave it to the reader to decide which one he’s really going to support.

Now, onto the second argument…

6. If the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law, then any pregnant woman in the country would be able to get an abortion without that procedure being cost prohibitive [the act provides federal subsidies for those who cannot afford an abortion].
7. If abortion is no longer cost prohibitive, then there will be more abortions.
8. If the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law, there will be more abortions (from (6) and (7)).
9. Obama stated that he wants fewer abortions.
10. There will be more abortions (from (2) and (8)).
11. Therefore, Obama wants fewer abortions and will sign into law an act that will increase abortions.

Now, (11) is a contradiction. (6) is true, (7) is reasonable, (8) follows deductively from (6) and (7), and so the problem is again the fact that Obama says one thing (10) and plans to do something (2) that contradict one another.

It’s certainly fair to ask whether Obama is really for less abortions or for more abortions and whether he is really for a ban on partial birth abortion or for zero restrictions on abortion. As far as I can tell, there is nothing coherent in Obama’s stated positions, and that is troubling. It seems that the contradictions either stem from incompetence or deception. In either event, the guy shouldn’t be President. Hopefully, that’s a smack right in the kisser.

Reason #11 to Defeat Barack Obama:  A Culture of Death

President George W. Bush set a goal for America.  He called for a society where every child would be “welcomed in life and protected in law.”  

This compassionate vision of a society which respects the value of every individual is what we work for each and every day at National Right to Life. 

But now there’s another president with a different approach.  One where the individual is de-valued.  Where he or she can be killed at any time during pregnancy.  Where government policies can deny a person life-saving medical care if he is sick, elderly or disabled, and where unborn children are denied legal protection.  

That’s President Obama’s approach.

Our 54 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama document why he is the most radically anti-life president in the history of our country.  Just look at the ten reasons in this series to date: 

Obama gives taxpayer dollars to an organization that assists China's population program, infamous for coerced abortions.*

Obama opposed banning partial-birth abortion.

Obama opposes the bill before Congress to ban sex-selection abortion.

Obama opposed protections for children born alive in an abortion.

Obama has appointed anti-life judges.

Obama has supported keeping late abortions legal, even after the point at which a baby can feel pain.

The Obama health care law expands insurance coverage for abortion.

Obama gutted conscience protections for medical personnel and disregarded conscience objections of taxpayers who oppose abortion.

Obamacare includes provisions to ration life-saving medical treatment.

Obama has disregarded our nation’s fundamental values of life and liberty as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

*each of these brief articles can be found at www.nrlvictoryfund.org       
 

You might think he can’t get any more anti-life than that.  Well, think again.

If Barack Obama wins a second term as president, he will not be restrained by any political calculations about how unpopular his anti-life policies are.   

In a second term, Obama could issue executive orders without personal politicalconsequences. And if he has a pro-abortion Congress behind him, he could enact anti-life laws that greatly expand both abortion and rationing.

The National Right to Life Victory Fund exists to see that this does not happen.

Using proven methods to get out the pro-life vote, the National Right to Life Victory Fund will fight every day until November 6th to see that Barack Obama is not re-elected, and that a pro-life Congress represents us in Washington. 

You and I are the voice of the vulnerable unborn, who have no voice of their own. Please give generously to the National Right to Life Victory Fund.  And please forward this important message to your friends by e-mail, Facebook, etc. 

Your voice is powerful!  If every American lets it be known what Obama is really doing on the life issues, we can defeat him in November!

Thank you!

Sincerely,
Carol Tobias,

President
National Right to Life

 

From National Right to Life: Obama as Pro-Abortion as is Politically Possible

Today's News & Views June 17, 2008

Trying to Wiggle Out of the Obvious Contradictions

If you think you may have read this column before, stay with me anyway. There are certain stubborn realities in this presidential election year that are like stains that have resisted the first half-dozen applications of the strongest stain remover.

Too many people whose opinions I ordinarily respect are so caught up in the "promise" of pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama that they refuse to face facts. Or, more specifically, they soft soap the grim reality that Obama is the most anti-life presidential candidate to run since Roe v. Wade was laid on the shoulders of unborn babies.

Obama is like an instrument that vibrates in sympathetic harmony with the Abortion Establishment. While you know the litany, unfortunately only a tiny percentage of the American public is aware of his abysmal record.

They don't know Obama's support for taxpayer funding of abortion, which increases the number of dead babies. They don't know that he approves of abortionists not notifying parents even when they are performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state.

Nor do they know that Obama supports cloning human embryos, is a co-sponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act" (Roe on steroids), or that he bitterly denounced the Supreme Court for upholding a law that banned the hideous partial-birth abortion "procedure." This is no small deal. Even some pro-abortion senators drew the line at partial-birth abortion. For example, according to the Congressional Record (Sept. 26, 1996, at S11373), the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus, and what on Earth is this procedure?"

Prof. Paul Kengor recently wrote a thoughtful piece about this whole phenomenon. Although he was talking specifically about Roman Catholic apologists for Obama, his analysis applies across the board.

Kengor does a masterful (and emotionally gripping) job of painting a picture of what happened to those few babies who survived an abortion. The neglect of these victims was so revolting that, in spite of the best efforts of the usual congressional suspects, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed in 2002. All BAIPA does is require that these babies receive the same medical attention given a baby spontaneously born prematurely.

"Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time that the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress," Kengor writes. "But he was a member of the Illinois state legislature, where similar legislation was introduced at the state level." Obama voted against the legislation.

All this and more is outlined by Kengor by way of setting the stage. For all of his egregious pro-abortion positions, Obama is vigorously supported by people who ought to know better--or perhaps do, and pretend otherwise.

Part of the explanation is a variation of the argument that while abortion is (or may be) important, it does not match, let alone override, a panoply of other issues taken as a whole. If this is their position, so be it.

But the website of these same Catholics begins, Kengor explains, with a long quote "from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which states, 'The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of the moral vision for society. … In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia.' "

So there must be some heavy-duty rationalizing at work to explain why "they are stumping hard for Obama, who, if elected, has promised to do whatever he can to appoint justices and support legislation guaranteeing decades of protection for Roe v. Wade." (I'm not dealing with those who simply want a Democrat elected President.)

Kengor offers a very illuminating example of one man who at least addresses the abortion issue. This guy concedes that he "may disagree" with Obama "on aspects of these important fundamentals," but nonetheless is "convinced, based upon his [Obama's] public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of views and, as best as is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them."

In other words, I like his smile, so what if he is a force behind FOCA, which would undo with the stroke of a pen decades of pro-life achievements? Obama doesn't raise his voice, so what if he would allow abortion survivors to die unattended? He gives me goose pimples, so what if pro-abortion justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg--the kind that would allow partial-birth abortions--are Obama's ideal?

Kengor is right that there are psychological mechanisms (and rationalizations) aplenty at work, allowing even some who would proudly call themselves "pro-life" to wiggle out of the obvious contradictions.

We need to keep the Truth Squad working 24/7, not for these people, alas, but for those who may be influenced by them. One important component is Today's News & Views.
Be sure to pass this edition on to friends, family, and colleagues. And also, please encourage them to sign up to receive this daily feature.

Please send me your thoughts at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Obama's One Law Publication: Abortion on Demand

Barack Obama's Sole Article in Harvard Law Review Promotes Abortion

by Steven Ertelt
www.LifeNews.com

August 22, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- How strongly does Barack Obama believe in unlimited abortions? Strongly enough that the only article he wrote for the Harvard Law Review while he was a law school student talked about how fervently believed in legalized abortion. Obama's name wasn't attached to any other legal scholarship during the time.

In an article unearthed by the Politico web site, Obama, as the president of the Harvard Law Review, wrote an unsigned article touting abortion. (see below)

The web site says the article comes in at six pages and is contained in the third volume of the 1990 Harvard Law Review.

In the work, Obama considered a parenthetical abortion issue -- whether unborn children have a legal right to sue their mothers for damage sustained during pregnancy, from such things as alcohol or illegal drugs.

Obama says no and writes supportively of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and another from the Illinois Supreme Court saying no such right exists.
According to Politico, Obama wrote: "[T]he case raises the broader policy and constitutional considerations that argue against using civil liability to control the behavior of pregnant women."
In a discussion of abortion itself, Obama wrote that government has more important business than "ensuring that any particular fetus is born."

He also decried any limits on abortion, saying the government has an interest in "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."
Politico said the Obama campaign confirmed the pro-abortion presidential candidate wrote the piece in question and that it was one of the typical articles law students would write briefing and opining on federal and state court decisions.

In an email to the web site, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt also confirmed that Obama "remains committed to" the sentiments he expressed in the piece.

Obama's article is on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review and would likely be located in larger public libraries and databases that chronicle legal articles in scholarly publications.

Sarah Speaks the Truth About Obama and Abortion

Johnstown, PA (LifeNews.com)

-- The following is the text of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's remarks on Saturday, October 11 at a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on Barack Obama and abortion:

“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.

I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.
In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America.

There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”

One More Time: What an Obama Presidency Would Mean

Let me put it plainly: Too many Christians are supporting Obama. Perhaps they do not understand the implications of an Obama Presidency. Consider just three issues: unborn human life, terrorism, and poverty.

Abortion:

All humans are made in God's image and are such from conception. God forbids murder (unlawful killing). The killing of the unborn is, therefore, immoral and sinful--especially so, since they are utterly helpless. They are among "the least of these" that Jesus told us to care for. (I take abortion to save the life of the mother to not be sinful, but this accounts for only a minute percentage of abortions in the US).

1. Obama would sign The Freedom of Choice Act if it comes to his desk. This would annul every state or local restriction on abortion in the 50 states.

2. Obama would appoint several Supreme Court justices. They would be pro-choice with a vengeance, thus wiping out the possibility of reversing Roe v. Wade, which (along with Doe v. Bolton) opened the floodgates to abortion on demand in the United States. In other words, over 40,000,000 legal abortions in the United States since 1973.

3. Obama would fund abortions through tax payer's money. That is chapter and verse from the Democratic Platform.

4. Obama even opposed the ban on partial birth abortions, and would likely do what he could to bring them back. He opposed a born-alive statute in Illinois that would have allowed hospitals to save aborted babies that survived their own execution.

5. Obama admits he is an ignoramus on when a fetus gets any human rights. It is "above his pay grade." He has also said that we don't know when human life begins. This is a crock. Biology tells us life begins at conception (once a complete genetic code comes into being); since that life comes from humans, it is human life from conception. What else could it be? This is not difficult. But even if one is not sure when human life begins, that does not justify abortion on demand! We should, rather, err on the side of caution, given the momentous stakes at hand.

The National Right to Life gave Obama a rating of o%--the worst possible. The National Abortion Rights Action League gave him a rating of 100%--the best possible. See their documentation of Obama and Biden's views on abortion.

John McCain has become more pro-life recently. He said at Saddleback Community Church that the fetus has human rights from the beginning. He is the polar opposite of Obama on this, as is Sarah Palin.

Terrorism:

Evil is real in the world. The Bible does not forbid the use of force in a just cause. The innocent should be protected against attack.

1. Obama has no military experience. In fact, he has anti-military associations, such as William Ayers, a confessed bomber of American military sites. Like most political liberals, he views terrorism as a criminal justice question, not one of military concern. He has opposed funding for the Iraq war and would likely lose that war if elected, thus turning Iraq into a bloodbath and likely a terrorist stronghold, with the Iranians reigning down on it like vultures. They are already supporting terrorism around the world.

2. Obama views himself as a "world citizen" and would conform to international pressures rather than putting the US first. This would weaken us and make us more vulnerable to attack and lessen our ability to do good in the world.

McCain is a military man and has served in the Senate for over twenty years, getting more experience on these matters. He supported the recently successful troop surge (when it was unpopular) and realizes we cannot pull out of Iraq until the job is done.

The Poor:

Some Christians are deceived into thinking that political liberalism is better for the poor than conservatism. So, since the Bible tells us to care about the poor and the oppressed, we should support the Democrats. Not so fast. Saying you care about them and actually providing meaningful assistance are two different things. The liberal mindset is based on centralized, tax-funded programs. This slows down the economy and encourages dependence. This was the lesson of President Johnson's "War on Poverty." Poverty won. Read Winning the Race by John McWhorter (an African American) on that.

The conservative approach is to limit the power of the state, to cut taxes, and to give people more freedom to develop their skills and work on and give to the causes that concern them. It is not "Let them eat cake," but is based on a different philosophy of economics.

Moreover it is a leftwing fable that conservatives don't care about the poor. Studies show that conservatives give four times more to charity than do liberals. This is because liberals think the state should do this work, not individuals and private associations. (See Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares? and The Acton Institute.)

McCain has articulated his concerns to help those out of work get reeducated and those without adequate health coverage to have more options. However, he does not want to socialize medicine and create a huge bureaucracy.

It is not an option for Christians to neglect the poor and marginalized. However, it is far from obvious that the Democrats have the best plan to help these people. They would certainly not help the unborn, the poorest and most marginalized of all.

Why I Will Vote for Obama (I have now corrected some pretty bad errors)

I have caught the fervor. I will vote for Obama. Here is my reasoning in three crucial areas.

1. Yes, he doesn't share my views on abortion, but so what? After all, aborted babies go to heaven. If they grow up, they might go to hell. Abortion on demand is the best form of evangelism ever invented. So, with Obama we'd continue to get over a million babies into heaven year, and Supreme Court Justices to insure that it goes on for another generation. Obama would push for more and more federal funding for abortions, which means we would be using state money for evangelism! How cool is that?! And I'm sure the ACLU would never call him on it. Yes, I know the Bible talks about "Thou shalt not murder" and caring for "the least of these," but let's not get legalistic and impose our Christian morality on others.

2. Yes, Obama would likely withdraw the military from Iraq and Afghanistan, thus leading to increased terrorist activities there and to their take over by terrorist governments. Well, it's not perfect world. Losing these countries to forces bent on destroying us is really good for two reasons:

(a) Doing this would free up funds here at home--along with Obama's massive tax increases--for state programs. We all know that you cannot trust free people use their own money wisely. No, people are greedy, but the state is giving. Profit is evil, but tax confiscation of profit is just. Why shouldn't a faceless bureaucracy do a better job with my money than I can?

(b) With increased terrorist activity in Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks on the US are much more likely. This would embolden Osama and his ilk to rain upn us as many 9/11-like apocalypses as possible. But do you remember how full the churches were after 9/11? Remember how many people were asking significant questions about life and death in the wake of 3,000 deaths? This spiritual openness trailed off as months and years went by without another catastrophe in America (thanks to President Bush's authoritarian policies at home and abroad.) But with Obama in The White House, terrorist attacks would increase. This would rally terrorists abroad and give them more freedom at home (since Bush's heavy-handed surveillance tactics would be annulled). Think of the possibilities for revival! San Francisco is shattered by a suitcase nuke and then repents of its long term and trend-setting immorality--just like after the San Francisco earthquake long ago. Marvelous are these thoughts. Let it stretch your faith.

3. The Bible does view marriage as being between a man and a woman. This has been the basic standard of civilization ever since the garden. Yes, but things change over time and we need to be flexible. While Obama has yet to plainly endorse same-sex marriage, he does oppose measures to legally define it in the traditional manner. He certainly would not impose his own, private, personal, religious views (whatever they are) on others. In fact, he may not even impose his own morality on himself. So, an Obama presidency would open the way for same-sex marriage to become a legal institution in America. Think of the benefits to open-minded people. Ministers who need gigs performing marriages would experience a boon! Couples wanting to tie the knot would be popping up everwhere. On top of that, these ceremonies would provide opportunities for evangelism. The minister could say, "Do you, Holly, want to take Penny as your lawfully wedded partner--and accept Jesus as your personal Savior?" But most importantly, with same-sex marriage inshrined in law, more and more Christians will drop their old fashioned principles about marriage (just as they have against abortion). This, in turn, will soften many homosexual hearts to accept the gospel (or what's left of it).


Well, since Obama is somewhat ahead in the polls and since many evangelicals are supporting him, I can breathe a lot easier and enjoy the Fourth Of July. America: land of the free and home of the Obama.

(Yes, this is a satire.)

Two Logic Bombs Against Obama

Concerning Obama's relationship to the Jeremiah Wright.

1. Either (a) he knew of his irrational, conspiratorial, and divisive views or (b) he didn't.
2. If (a), Obama is culpable for supporting egregious error.
3. If (b), Obama is an ignoramus about the basic teachings of his own church, and not a serious church goer (even though he avows that he is and is appealing to many religious people for this reason).
4. If either (a) or (b), Obama suffers from several moral impoverishment and does not possess the leadership character to be the most powerful person in the world.
(5. (a) is far more likely than (b).)
(I was inspired by Sarah Scott for this argument.)

--------------

1. Obama says he doesn't know the status of the unborn.
2. Obama, therefore, supports abortion on demand as do all good Democrats today. It is an item of (bad) faith for them.
3. If one does not know the status of the unborn, one should be conservative and protect that unborn living, human being, which, if left alone, will develop into someone just like us. (One cannot dispute that the fetus is a living human, even if one has--unjustifiable--qualms about personhood.) Because the stakes are so high, the benefit of doubt should be given to the human life; the burden of proof should be on the life-taker.
4. Obama, on the contrary, thinks that his ignorance justifies the ongoing killing of well over a million innocent humans a year without any legal restriction.
5. This reveals Obama to be morally incompetent at the deepest possible level. If he cannot see the truth at this level, why expect him to recognize it elsewhere--just because he has a good speaking voice? His supposed concern for "the poor and oppressed" is given the lie. Who is more oppressed than the aborted unborn today?

Obama's Blackberry: Why Care?

"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.--Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:26).

Obama has been given permission to use a modified version of his Blackberry. Why should anyone care about this? From what I know, the Blackberry communications are not traceable or recorded anywhere. This means Obama has a mode of communication not subject to official recording, something mandated by law for sitting Presidents. Can we simply trust him to use it for merely personal matters of no consequence. Of course not. Anyone with that much power, must be held accountable.

As a radio host mentioned tonight (substituting on "The Savage Nation"), why couldn't Obama use it to get advice from his old crony William Ayers, a domestic terrorist? This would not be traceable, as would conversations on land line or conversations in the White House itself. As I wrote during the election Obama's connections to Ayers went very deep, but mainstream press never pressed this issue sufficiently. Now I find Ayers's book, Fugitive Days (a chronicle of his years of evading the Law) on sale at Kings Soopers. His rehabilitation has began in earnest. Obama will not likely officially sanction or be known to communicate to Ayers, but who knows when he might communicate with him--if the form of communication is absolutely secret? Who else would Obama talk to? What would we say? Apparently, we will never know, given this recent development, which seems ominous.

Once again, Obama is given a pass where he does not deserve one.

(I usually do not allow responses to my comments on Obama ]simply because they are typically very caustic], but in this case, if you can correct what I have said about the technology or the law, I will post your critical comments.)

Young Voters, Unite and Loose Your Ignorance

Young voter, please consider:

1. You were emotionally manipulated to vote for Obama. Most of you did not know the issues and did not understand Obama's ideology: far left, anti-colonialist, anti-American exceptionalism.
2. You were won over by an almost entirely pro-Obama mainstream media. You did not seek out alternative views.
3. You loved the "hope" theme; but you should now see that long-term unemployment, fantastic debt, an expanding federal government intent on taking away your freedoms (particularly economic and religious freedom), and Obama's inability to protect our troops abroad, has shattered the dream of hope.
4. Mitt Romney may not be as "cool" (in postmodern, debased ways) as Obama. Get over it. What counts are:

(a) Character. The man has donated all his pay for holding office back the government he served. He does not seal most of his past, as does Obama.

(b) Track record: Romney saved the Olympics, got bipartisan support in MA and is a successful businessman: meaning he created thousands of jobs.

(c) Political Philosophy: Romney is far more American (in the best way) than Obama, who is anti-American. He supports our founding ideals, found in the Declaration and Constitution. Read them some time. 75% of college grades cannot explain the purpose of the First Amendment. That is part of the reason they voted for Obama.

I could go on, but I urge you, I implore you, to not just sit out the vote, but to vote for Romney-Ryan. If you like youth and hope combined, look to Paul Ryan: a brilliant and knowledgeable, and honorable man.

Dirty Tricks: the Chicago Way

MEMORANDUM

From:              Katie Biber, General Counsel

To:                  Interested Parties

Date:               8/5/2012

Re:                  Obama For America Ohio Lawsuit

To View This Memo Online, Click Here: http://mi.tt/RGYRq0

On July 17, 2012, Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee filed suit against the Attorney General and Secretary of State of Ohio.  In their lawsuit, the Obama campaign and the DNC argue it is “arbitrary” and unconstitutional to provide three extra days of early, in-person voting to military voters and their families.  At least 20 times in their legal papers, they argue that there is no good reason to give special flexibility to military voters – and that this policy adopted by the Ohio legislature is so wrong it is unconstitutional.

We disagree with the basic premise that it is “arbitrary” and unconstitutional to give three extra days of in-person early voting to military voters and their families, and believe it is a dangerous and offensive argument for President Obama and the DNC to make.  It is not only constitutional, but commendable that the Ohio legislature granted military voters and their families this accommodation.  It is despicable for the Obama campaign to challenge Ohio’s lawful decision.

But this lawsuit is not about us.  Last week, respected military groups intervened in the Obama campaign’s lawsuit.  They argue that it is absolutely constitutional to give military voters special flexibility in voting, and that it is offensive for the Commander-in-Chief’s political campaign to argue otherwise.  They correctly point out that there is good reason to grant military voters special flexibility; members of the military—including those stationed here within the United States—are subject to restrictions, uncertainties, and risks that often make it more difficult for them to vote.  We agree with these military groups.

The Obama campaign may not like the early voting policy that the Ohio legislature set.  This does not mean the policy is unconstitutional, and it certainly does not mean that a federal court should be permitted to remake it. 

###

Obama's Invitation to Osama and His Friends

Joe Biden made some revealing remarks yesterday, In fact, they are true, and highly significant.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." "I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

This is a key and crucial reason I have never supported Obama (even apart from Obama's transcendently evil pro-abortion mindset). He will invite more terrorist attacks. Further, he will not know what to do with them, just as Bill Clinton did not know what to do with them. You may not like George Bush, but the United States has not been attacked on our soil since September 11, 2001. Obama, however, would weaken homeland security (as nearly all liberals do--except Joe Leiberman); he will defund the military; he will "work with the international community" more than he will put our national interests first. But the international community, by and large, does not share out moral, cultural, and political principles (to put it mildly).

I am not saying "My country right or wrong" (which is idolatry); I am saying that American ideals are the greatest in the world, and we have great potential to do good in the world. Yet many hate us, our form of government, our primary religion, and our power. When they perceive weakness, they will strike.

Obama invites this. Obama would fail the test. John McCain does not invite this; and if tested, he would chose far better than a first-term Senator who has spent the lion's share of that term absent from the Senate and on the road hawking his own postmodern, hyperreal brand: himself. The terrorists are not impressed. Count on it. Vote on it.

John McCain, on the contrary, will not be viewed by the international community as an inexperienced, left-wing, anti-military, blame-America-first, neophyte. He will be viewed (rightly so) as a man of military experience and of strength. Count on it. Vote on it.

Rational Fear; Irrational Hope; Rational Hope

Tonight on TV Obama tells us to "Chose Hope Over Fear." It is a slogan without meaning. One should fear the outcomes of an Obama presidency:

1. Fear Obama's abortion policies: signing The Freedom of Choice Act, overturning the Hyde Amendment (banning tax dollars to support abortion), supporting partial birth abortions, etc. Hope for good in these areas is irrational.

There is reason to hope that John McCain will be as pro-life as his record shows and his words proclaim.

2. Fear Obama's economic policies: higher taxes that inhibits economic recovery; huge increases in governmental spending; "spreading the wealth around" through confiscatory taxation and social engineering. Hope for this economic shell game is irrational.

There is reason to hope that John McCain will control spending and keep taxes low, thus leaving more money in our hands and generating more tax revenue (as did Reagan).

3. Fear Obama's foreign policy: defunding an already overstretched military; losing Iraq to terrorist rule; bargaining with rogue leaders of Iran, etc., with no sense of their dangers and evils. Hope here is irrational and dangerous.

There is reason to hope that a long time Senator and military hero--who was right about the surge in Iraq--will do the right thing and be strong in the face of international evils. John McCain is that man.

4. Fear Obama's lack of executive experience and moral character: he has written two memiors, but no significant legislation; he is a first term senator with a very shady background (close associations with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, etc.). Hoping in this man in irrational and dangerous.

There is reason to hope that John McCain's proven character will continue while in The White House.

Slogans do not make for coherent political philosophies. Evil outcomes should be feared and thus avoided. Hope should rest in rational projections, not in irrational and romantic wishes.

For these reasons, do not vote for Obama and be sure to vote for John McCain. No, he is not as charismatic, but that does not matter. We need a proven leader with strong character and wise policies, not an "historic" celebrity who lacks the needed credentials for the most influential office on the planet.

I Cannot Stop: More Evidence on Obama's Extreme Leftism

Here is yet more evidence from a 2001 radio interview that Obama wants the state to be socialist: to redistribute the wealth through changes in The Constitution. He doesn't want it to be a document emphasizing negative rights--what the state cannot do--but how the state can redistribute wealth. That, of course is not its original meaning: it stipulates what a representative republic according to the rule of law should be.

We know from other sources, Obama views the Constitution as a "living document." That means that lawyers and judges should deconstruct it according to their agendas. In other words, a hundred more Roe v. Wades (which generated "the right to privacy" ex nihilo)--regarding wealth, human life, and everything else.

Obama says that the civil rights movement put too much emphasis on the courts, but he still laments that the (Warren) Supreme Court was not more radical concerning the redistribution of wealth during that era. That is the essential point. He says people "on the ground" can bring redistributive change better than the courts--unless, of course, you are President. Then you can appoint revisionist, redistributionist judges to the highest court in the land.

These close associations and affiliations with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, et al, were not accidental, but essential to the man's character and political philosophy. They all share a very similar outlook. And, yes, it is unAmerican.

The Civil Rights Movement was not unAmerican; it helped established Constitutional rights to all Americans: red and yellow, black and white. But giving the Constitution a socialist facelift is unAmerican and deeply dangerous to our way of life.

The Obama campaign claims that what he said has no relation to his present plans. This is exceedingly unlikely. Obama's slip to Joe the Plumber was revealing indeed: "spread the wealth around"--through reinterpreting The Constitution, confiscatory taxation, class warfare, and an anti-business (translated: anti-jobs, anti-wealth-creation) orientation based on resentment and envy.

These are Obama's true colors. Wake up and strengthen the things that remain--unless, of course, you want the US to become a European-style socialist state.

John McCain and Sarah Palin do not. Vote for them on November 2, 2008...as if your future depends on it, because it does.

An Open Letter to Governor Sarah Palin

Dear Govenor Palin:

Many of us were elated at your being selected Senator McCain's running mate. Those of us who are principled conservatives had qualms about Sen. McCain, and your selection told us that he would not alienate the conservative elements in his party. Moreover, I liked your stands on governmental corruption, fiscal conservatism, and on human life. I also appreciated your presence as an outsider, someone from my home state of Alaska. I defended you on the basis that Alaska is a tough state to govern, given its physical uniqueness and the fierce independence of Alaskans. I read your biography, Sarah, with great interest. I was delighted to find that you were my sister in Christ. I defended your interview with Charles Gibson on the grounds that he was out to get you.

However, I have some concerns about you and this election. I am not an ideologue, supporting a candidate no matter what without regard to the facts. I offer these with no rancor, but only with love and hope. It seemed that many conservative Christians were more excited about your biography than your political acumen. This was particularly evident on "The Hugh Hewitt Show" as Hugh gave over a week to first-time, female callers, who enthused in mostly emotive tones about you. There was more about your being a mother, having decided to keep a Downs child, being a hunter, and so on, than on your actual ability to lead at such a high level. I heard conservatives hail you as another Margaret Thatcher. That kind of hypertrophied praise borders on the obsequious. It is premature and overblown. We need informed citizens, not sychophants of the right or of the left. But you do have promise and have made an impressive start in the political world.

Several conservative commentators worry that you have not performed well on articulating your views on the issues. I share some of these concerns, given some of your recent comments in interviews. You have been somewhat shielded from the white heat of the press. That can be defended on the basis that you needed preparation. But now you must step right into the spotlight of inquisition.

Yes, the mainstream press had been unfair toward you, raking over your private life and not sparing even your children. Obama sent thirty operators to your home state to dig up Alaskan dirt on you. Welcome to American politics on the national level. Alaskan politics can be mean, since people everywhere are sinners, but Alaskans have rather limited resources in their attacks. Now the guns of the entire mainstream media and all the Obama operatives (which includes the mainstream media) are aimed directly at you and your dear family. They will sink to any level, likening you to Pontius Pilate and claiming you are not a real woman (since you are not a secular feminist).

None of this diminishes my support for the McCain-Palin ticket. Senator Obama is a disaster on every level. He is not ready to lead, given his paucity of experience. If he were ready to lead, his politics would be a disaster for our country. The killing fields of abortion on demand would widen and receive even more legal protections. National defense would suffer terribly. The state would swell to elephantine purportions (but without the intelligence of that noble beast). Obama is good at one thing: promoting himself. May he repent of that.

Nevertheless, Governor Palin and my sister in Christ, I exhort you to prepare yourself as best as possible on every level for the duration of the campaign. Your debate with Sen. Biden may be a turning point. If you rise to the occasion by out-arguing him and keeping your cool, many will applaud you. If you rely on talking points and mere charm, more will question your leadership.

I, for one, will pray hard for you and John McCain for the duration of this weary campaign. I will continue to argue that Christians and others should vote for you and Senator McCain. Many say the nomination of Obama is "historic." Perhaps, but there are failures of historic proportions as well. The election of Obama would be a failure of the nerve and wisdom of the American people, given his record and his abysmal politicies (the things that really count). Your election as vice president would be historic as well. I hope that I see that day and that history will applaud your political achievements.

The LORD bless you
and keep you;

the LORD make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;

the LORD turn his face toward you
and give you peace.--Numbers 6.

Sincerely,
Douglas Groothuis

Sarah Palin for Mitt!

Sarah Palin · 3,483,639 like this

12 minutes ago · 

• This Tuesday our country’s future is in our hands.
  
  What’s past is prologue. We know what we will get from a second Obama term because we’ve all endured his first term. We know how well he kept his 2008 campaign promises. Do we really believe he’ll keep his 2012 promises?
  
  Do we believe the word of a man who promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class, but then slammed the middle class with a massive tax hike in the form of Obamacare (and don’t forget that his own lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the individual mandate is a tax)?
  
  Do we really believe he won’t raise taxes even more on every American in order to pay for his wasteful spending and his crony capitalism?
  
  Do we believe that the same president who increased the debt in his first term by more than all the first 41 presidents combined will suddenly decide to cut the deficit in his second term?
  
  Do we believe that the president whose reckless spending led us to the first credit rating downgrade in our nation’s history will suddenly become a responsible fiscal manager if we reelect him?
  
  Do we really believe that a president who promised us that job creation was his number one priority despite month after month of dismal job numbers now has a credible “plan” for the job growth that eluded him for the past four years?
  
  Do we believe that the same president who shut down the Keystone Pipeline and blocks domestic oil and natural gas development at every turn is somehow going to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and lead us to energy independence?
  
  Do we really believe that our country’s national security is safe in the hands of a president whose administration denied security and assistance to our consulate under attack on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on America, and then blamed that consulate attack and the death of our ambassador on a “spontaneous” protest over an obscure YouTube video despite all the real time evidence to the contrary?
  
  Do we believe that a president who was caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president that he would have “more flexibility” after his reelection is being honest about his plans for a second term?
  
  We know what we will get from a second Obama term. We will get the same failed policies. We will get Obamacare locked into law without any chance of undoing this dangerous legislation and any chance to seek real patient-centered health care reform. We will get a debt crisis. We will get more inflation and higher gas prices. We will get tax increases. We will get fewer jobs. We will get more small businesses collapsing under the weight of higher taxes and unfair regulation. We will get more corruption and crony capitalism favoring the Obama administration’s friends. We will get less domestic energy development and increased dependence on terrorist sponsoring foreign regimes for our energy needs. We will get a “blame America first” foreign policy that bows to our enemies and snubs our friends like Israel and leaves America and the world less safe. We will get less opportunity and security for ourselves and for our children.
  
  In 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America. And for all his failures and broken promises, that’s the one thing he has delivered on. He’s transformed us from a nation of hope to one of anxiety. It doesn’t have to be this way.
  
  Tuesday is our chance to turn things around.
  
  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have offered a credible alternative to Barack Obama’s failed policies. Governor Romney understands how the free market works. His pro-growth economic policies will benefit all Americans. He has promised to move us toward energy independence, deficit reduction, and responsible entitlement reform that honors our commitment to our seniors and keeps faith with future generations. Governor Romney deserves a chance to lead. President Obama had his chance. He’s failed, and we can’t afford to go backwards.
  
  We must also remember the many good Republican candidates who are running for the House and Senate this year. They deserve our support as well. If you are like me, you have watched these campaigns, learned about the candidates, and know where they stand despite the skewed lens of a partisan media bent on keeping liberal leadership in power. We saw the destruction a Democrat controlled White House, House, and Senate brought us after the 2008 election. Our country can’t afford that again. Your vote is the only safeguard against that happening.
  
  On Tuesday, please vote for Governor Mitt Romney and the commonsense conservatives running for office in your states.
  
  Voting is our duty and our right. We must never forget the immense sacrifices generations of Americans, including our brave men and women in uniform today, have made to give us this right. And we must never forget the duty we owe to generations of Americans yet to be born to exercise our right to vote prudently. The White House and control of the Senate is in the balance in this election, and every vote will count.
  
  I firmly believe it is our responsibility to restore this country and secure the blessings of liberty and prosperity for our children, just as it was secured for us. This is our sacred duty to the past and to the future. We will succeed in this so help us God.
  
  God bless you and God bless America.
  
  With an Alaskan heart,
  
  Sarah Palin

Obama to Give Speech on Race

This is from a New York Times article on Obama's speech on race, to be given on Tuesday.

Mr. Obama has also pitched himself as a candidate who can attract religious voters back to the Democratic Party, one who speaks the language of the Bible fluently and testifies about what he says is the impact of Christianity on his own life.

“What better way to try to undercut the way he integrates faith and political vision than to say we should all be secretly afraid of his church?” said Jim Wallis, a left-leaning evangelical who has had longstanding relationships with both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, and who says that Mr. Wright has been unfairly caricatured in recent portrayals.

1. Speaking the language of the Bible should be distinguished from presenting a biblical worldview and ethics, something Obama does not do. Case in point: he is for the ongoing, unlimited carnage of abortion on demand. He would do nothing to limit is legality; he would do everything to fund it federally. And remember, there are six justices on the Supreme Court in their late sixties. Any appointees he would make would endorse Roe v. Wade.

2. Jim Wallis misses the point and begs the question. There is nothing wrong with bringing one's religious beliefs into politics, if this honors the American ideal of so doing. The question is how it is done. If a man sat under extremist racial teaching for twenty years, this should lead us to question how he relates his faith to politics. His church affirms "black values" as mentioned in a previous post. The Declaration of Independence affirms "unalienable rights" given by God to all. Martin Luther King brought that nation back to this commitment and said we had to "cash the check." Indeed. But he never appealed to "black values" against other kinds of values.

I make a prediction: Obama speech will wow the crowd with soaring statements on race, faith, and politics. But remember the man's history and don't get lost in emotion untethered from reason.

Some Strategies under Obama

Constructive activities to oppose the Obama regime

1. Pray and fast for mercy for America.
2. Contribute to and volunteer for organizations that counsel women to keep their unborn children and who help them once the children are born. It is unlikely we can do too much to stop the supply of abortions under Obama, but we can work to slow the demand. To keep up with policy issues, consult National Right to Life.
3. Do all you can to stop The Freedom of Choice Act. Write, call, visit members of congress. This will probably come up soon in the Obama regime.
4. Prepare for a major economic recession, if not depression. I am not a financial adviser, but do not assume the economy will look much like it did under Bush.
5. Prepare for more terrorist attacks. They will likely hit US soil again under Obama, since he is weak on national defense and homeland security (as is nearly the entire US left). Store food and necessities. Prepare your soul under God.
6. Oppose attempts to create a so-called Fairness Doctrine, that would allow the government to control the content of media presentations. This denies the First Amendment and is meant to censure conservative viewpoints. Expect it under Obama.
7. Teach and preach biblical principles for civil government. These are being lost, as the last election demonstrated. Start with Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto.
8. Oppose draconian expansions of civil government under the label of "compassion" and the like.
9. Prepare yourself for hard, crushing times, perhaps unlike any previously in American history. This means radical depedence on God, a willingness to take up our cross and not compromise the faith given once for all to the saints. These conditions may also require more support among church members. When the crunch comes, the church must be a place of radical care, godly resistance, and compassion. On this, see Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century.

Of course, I hope I am wrong in these dire predictions. I do not claim to foretell the future, but only to warn those with ears to hear.

For Romney (again)

One should be idealistic at the primary level. I supported Bachmann; then Santorum; then I was down to this:

Mitt Romney, Mormon, not very conservative or

The End of America.

This choice is simple and consequential. Obama said he would “fundamentally change America.” Anyone half-awake would have seen that as treasonous, since the ideals of the American founding (inscribed and enshrined in the Declaration and Constitution) are the backbone of ordered liberty under Law.

Obama does not believe in this. He is a progressive. anti-colonialist. He wants to cut America back to atone for its previous evils. The founding documents are fodder for social experimentation with Barack Obama as the Innovator and Conditioner (to pull terms from Lewis’s The Abolition of Man). This one man has already done much harm at multiple levels–to the economy, the military, and, yes, to morality (his support of same-sex marriage; and his edict that we all pay for abortions).

Anyone who loves America and wants us to have a fighting chance to recover from four years of political apocalypse will vote for the man who at least believes in basic American ideals, a man with a proven track record in business, who knows how to fix things, and who has some financial and military sense.

We are voting for Commander-in-Chief, not Pastor-in-Chief. Yes, Romney belongs to what is, theologically, a cult. But Obama is no Christian. He is either an ultra-liberal, apostate liberationist theologian or a closet Muslim. He shows far more sympathy and respect to Islam than to Christianity. Neither one are religious models, but Romney is clearly the best choice. Consider, the next President will:

1. Appoint Supreme Court Justices and many federal judges.
2. Be Commander-in-Chief of our military, which is shrinking under Obama.
3. Repeal or institutionalize socialized medicine. Once in place in a second Obama term, this would never be repealed. We would be trapped in a statist system of chronic scarcity, top-down control, and bureaucratic rationing.
4. Either stop the massive, unheard of and wasteful spending or get it under control.

Further, if Romney names a more conservative Vice-President (such as Rubio, please God), then that person may well become the next and far-better president.

In the name of God and all that’s good, vote for Mitt Romney.