Stanek weekend question II: Do you agree no one who worships the God of Abraham could possibly have voted for Obama?
Louie Verrecchio is one of Catholic News Agency’s longest running columnists. He wrote an oped this week, reposted by American Life League, that contained several strong statements and one profound one, underlined. Verrecchio was writing to Catholics but Protestants could certainly be included in much of his denouncement.
If the Second Coming of Obama is evidence of anything, it is the godlessness of a nation, the majority of whose citizens worship an idol who not only grants free license to practically every immoral impulse that one can imagine, but who also evidently demands human sacrifice to the tune of more than a million innocent souls each year.
This culture of depravity is the result of an underlying spiritual malady that has been allowed to fester and spread over the last five decades virtually unopposed by the only force capable of overtaking it.
The United States – a land wherein class-envy passes for compassion, same-sex “marriage” is accepted as fairness, and contraception is considered a matter of healthcare – is about to reap the just rewards, not so much of a nation that has abandoned the principles of its Founding Fathers, but of a Church that has abandoned its founder and the mission He has given her….
As difficult as it may be to accept, the anti-Christian oppressor and purveyor of evil extraordinaire, Barrack Hussein Obama, is precisely what the American people and the Church that has failed to properly form them deserves. Yes, deserves….
To be clear, while I considered my own ballot for Mitt Romney a vote in favor of a step in the right direction, I do not wish to imply that such a vote was a de facto vote for Christ.
What I do wish to state in the strongest terms possible, however, is that invincible ignorance aside there isn’t one single solitary person who worships the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who cast a vote in favor of Barrack Obama.
At the end of the day, America’s woes can be boiled down to good old-fashioned godlessness; either the majority of the electorate is with the Lord or against Him. In the case of election 2012, the latter prevailed and the reason is simple: The Church has gone astray.
Perhaps the dark days ahead will jolt the sacred hierarchy out of its collective slumber, emboldening them to set aside all worldly preoccupations to carry the light of Christ into the world and to proclaim His Kingship once more. This must be our prayer.
Do you agree that no one who worships the God of Abraham could possibly have voted for Obama? Also take the poll.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I disagree. There are Christians who voted for Obama. Most of them are confused or ignorant when it comes to political matters. They were convinced, by the mainstream media and others, that Mitt Romney is an extremely evil man, and that they had no choice but to support Obama because at least Obama doesn’t want to kill women and destroy the Earth.
Now, if the question is, could a Christian with full knowledge of Obama and politics vote for him? In that case I would say no. The Obama administration is far too hostile toward Christians.
That might be the stupidest opinion I’ve read in a long, long time. I could see an argument being made that Christians shouldn’t vote at all – but this cherry picking of important Biblical issues gets old. Yes, the Democrats are wrong on abortion. The Republicans are equally wrong about their disdain for the poor and their love of the rich. Both parties do things for reasons of power and political influence – to think that one party is a ‘Christian’ party can only result if you alter the Bible and twist scripture.
I do agree that someone who is a genuinely born again Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit and walking steadfastly in a daily relationship with Jesus Christ could never have peace voting for a man that pursues the continuation and expansion of the brutal murder of unborn children. Time for Christians to get serious about their faith and their walk…..too much gray….too much fence sitting.
Human nature is human nature, I don’t care who you do or do not worship. When I see people of faith and no faith in wild eyed ecstacy over Obama, as they were over Hitler, I have to believe that these people are not ruled by their faith, or even their good sense, but their emotions. You have Cardinal Dolan yukking it up with Obama. You have the Rev. Billy Graham making excuses for Clinton’s extramarital romping.
Yes there are people of faith and no faith who can only look on in dismay and hope these sad fools will become disillusioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-TkzGFe4s
I have seen many articles saying that Obama was elected because the Christian voting block stayed home. I have long disagreed. That may be partially true but I know too many “Christians” that voted for him. Obama was elected because so-called Christians voted for him and actively put him in office.. They argue that they are for the Democratic Party’s stand on social issues and I can understand that. However, they also argue that they are not pro-abortion but simply pro-choice. There is a quote that says that the only thing man has to do for evil to flourish is to look the other way! How can one support a man who, not once but four times, voted against comfort care for babies born alive from botched abortions? Abortion, the one single issue that I believe should restrict a Christian for voting for him. One cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion. You cannot stand on both sides of a fence, claiming to love Jehovah God with all your heart, soul and mind, and then endorse (either passively or actively) what He says that He hates. He hates hands that shed innocent blood. How can a person love both sin and God? They cannot. I do believe there is another issue besides abortion that we as Christians should be concerned about. That is the way the people of this country and the world are worshipping Obama. Women crying and fainting. The Hollywood elite calling him our lord and savior. News magazines calling him the “second coming.” Pictures of him with outstretched arms and a crown of thorns on his head. If HE, Obama, was a true Christian, he would have to actively reject this worship. His silence is damning. We are to put no other gods before the One True God. Christians are worshipping Obama and he is accepting that worship. That is my two cents.
I struggled with this question a lot throughout the latest election season. God and I talked a lot about this, and He showed me several things.
First, many of my Christian brothers and sisters did vote for Obama, and I think many of them were trying to honor God and love their neighbor with their vote, just as much as I was, though I did not vote for Obama.
Second, many Christians stand in different places on how to engage with politics when it comes to their beliefs. I have my own thoughts on that, but I do think many choose not to engage with abortion in a political way. Agree or disagree, that still accounts for their decision.
The Bible is not explicit on how modern-day American Christians should use their vote. Many genuine Christians who genuinely want to honor God in all parts of their lives did choose to vote for Obama. We all struggle with how to engage/not engage with the highly politicized country/culture we are in as Americans.
We also have to remember that NEITHER of the political candidates are perfect. While I personally think there are compelling reasons to use my vote to support a candidate who best represents my views on life, the Obama administration has other platforms that I agree on that may do good in the lives of people in other situations.
I am wary of putting so much stock in politics that we start to “evaluate” other believers on the genuineness of their faith by who they choose to vote for. God impressed on me during the last election season that I am not to stand in a place of judgment with my brothers and sisters in regards to the candidate they choose to align themselves with. I pray that they would have the same grace towards me!
Amen a-rod!
If you are a Jew or a Christian, you worship the God of Abraham. Jews are bound by the OT, and Deuteronomy says true worship is of the heart and according to God’s law (Deut 5&6, Isa1). Anyone bound by the OT has a difficult argument saying that the actions of Obama (specifically the lack of support for Israel) are in keeping with God’s law.
John 4:24 says “For God is Spirit, so those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.”
If you worship the God of Abraham as a Christian, you must worship in truth. To worship in truth is not to stick your head in the sand and ignore the obvious actions by Obama that are against what the NT says, easily applied to his disrespect for the unborn, among other subjects.
My understanding, anyway.
John, your whole first paragraph was summed up in the article’s, “invincible ignorance aside“. Meaning he did in fact acknowledge your point, but was not going to go into a long drawn out excuse-fest for the apathetic.
I TOTALLY AGREE with the article. And add we need to stop making excuses for the apathetic stubbornly ignorant masses. The truth is everywhere if a person cares to look. It takes very little effort. But they seriously argue against it with NOT ONE FACT, only “you must respect the president!!! Unfriend!” It’s idol worship point-blank. No excuse. Anyone who worships B Hussein Obama is NOT worshiping the God of Abraham. That’s pretty simple. Obama is not God! *gasp* And I seriously know people who would be offended by that statement >:( and also the statement, “Romney is NOT our SAVIOR!” during the election….. but that’s a parallel article for another time…. ;) Until Jesus Himself returns, the least we as PRACTICING CHRISTIANS (not “christians” in name only) can do is VOTE OUT evil men as they rise and attempt takeover of our country. We must love justice and see that it is done, and voting in men/women who will see that the EXACT OPPOSITE of justice is done just shows where the person’s heart/treasure are, and it’s not with Christ. So, no, no one who TRULY worships YHWH would have, let alone COULD HAVE voted in Evil, whatever it’s face.
EGV,
Republican disdain for the poor? Have you checked out the city of Detroit lately? Its been run by Democrats for 50 years.
Well said, Lori.
Reality, we have no disdain for the poor, you fool. We only have disdain for you, the poor in spirit.
A vote for Obama was a vote for darkness. I’ll say it loud, I’ll say it proud.
4,000 per day, Mr. Obama. And for you, that’s not enough. What a nasty, petty, little man.
Courtnay -
Reality hasn’t posted on this thread.
“John, your whole first paragraph was summed up in the article’s, “invincible ignorance aside“.”
True enough. Though I don’t know if I would say that half of Christians can claim invincible ignorance. There is some level of culpability. But I would not say that they are not Christians.
Another point needs to be made clearly. Through it is absurd to say that abortion is just one issue among many, we know that this is frequently done. It makes no sense to say, well, Obama supports the killing of one million innocent children every year, but on the other hand, Romney wants to decrease federal spending! It is illogical beyond belief to compare the two. BUT, it happens, as we see even in this thread. The point that needs to be made is this: President Obama has declared war on religious freedom. Even if you have fallen into the trap of just seeing abortion as “one issue among many”, anyone who has eyes and ears can see and hear how Obama demanded that Catholics abandon their deeply held beliefs. We’re now on his second HHS Mandate “accommodation”, as if upholding religious freedom is a burden for the federal government, and the second accommodation is still insufficient as it still requires Catholic hospitals and schools to provide contraceptives and abortifacients. As a said, a Christian with full knowledge could not have voted for Obama. That doesn’t mean they voted for Romney. I’m sure that many Christians voted third party or stayed home.
Sorry, Ex, I meant you. A little distracted by the snow this morning.
What other demographic would suffer 4,000 killings daily as it is subsidized by the government AND protected by law, PLUS be openly supported by a President as a good thing?
Hi John,
You are certainly right about this “second accomodation”, though it doesn’t surprise me in the least. I’m glad religious people are exercising extreme vigilance where Obama and his “accomodations” are concerned. As I have advised repeatedly on this blog, you have to get inside your opponent’s head and think like he thinks. Obama, an SPD/NPD, will never back down, only try to con you into thinking he has.
I was dismayed to see people on this blog taken in by Obama’s “tears” for the victims of the Newtown massacre. BTW, does anyone know if he shed any “tears” for the one of the latest victims of Chicago gang violence, a high school honor student who performed at his inaugaration? Anyone hear of her?
@John, there is no Scripture that says it is against God to decrease federal spending. There is certainly many, many Scriptures that illustrate His value of life. (If you’d like, I will post them.)
The hole in your argument is saying that true worshippers of the God of Abraham can claim ignorance, or lack in full knowledge vote for Obama. True worshippers cannot.
An aside: in analyzing the two candidates, Romney certainly came ahead on his positions lining up with Scripture, over Obama, regardless of whether you follow Judaism or Christianity.
Courtnay – Ha. No big deal – just wanted to make sure you weren’t on the wrong thread or something.
If “Christians” are so concerned for the poor that they would vote Democrat they ought to pick up their Bibles, blow the dust off the cover and read where Christ gave the care of the poor to the CHURCH. If the church was doing her duty to towards the poor (and many churches do but not ALL) then we wouldn’t even need the federal government. And btw, the large majority of the “poor” on federal assistance are not poor but able-bodied lazy. The government is subsidizing immoral behavior and laziness and I’ve seen it firsthand many many times.
Moving on, there is no way that a Christian who is seeking to honor God and is daily in the Word of God could vote for Obama AND HAVE PEACE. No way. They could vote for him but I do believe the Holy Spirit would convict them. God’s Word says HE HATES hands that shed innocent blood and Obama has propped up those types of hands over and over. The Bible also says God orders the steps of righteous men so if you’re really seeking the Lord’s will He will make it known. God would not want a pro-baby killing person in power but I do think our society is so hedonistic and anti-God that God says “Okay. I’ll let you have what you want and you will suffer the consequences of it.” Much like how God allowed the Israelites to have Saul as their king because he was handsome even though that wasn’t God’s pick to be their king. He allowed them to have their stubborn way and suffer the consequences of it.
Christy -
Sure – and there are a lot of verses in regards to the care for the poor, immigrants, and the vulnerable.
If you are looking to find your morality in a political party, you are going to come up short. Salvation doesn’t come from the GOP or Democratic party.
Sydney –
And finally, attacking those receiving federal assistance begins!
I want you to define which of these groups is lazy, since you said the majority of people receiving federal assistance are able-bodied lazy:
– 53% of entitlements go to those over 65.
-20% of entitlements go to disabled
– 18% of entitlements go to people who have jobs and are working
– 9% go to people who aren’t disabled, aren’t over 65, and don’t have a job.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/
So please, enlighten us – is it the elderly in this country who are lazy and should get to work and get off the federal dime? Or maybe the disabled? Maybe those veterans who got shot up at war should just “suck it up” and get a job, right?
The ‘Large majority”, according to you – are not poor but ‘able-bodied lazy’.
You have some numbers in front of you. Make your claim.
Hi Sydney M,
Great point. As I recall, Christ taught his followers that they were responsible for those in need. He said nothing about demanding “free” handouts from the wealthy and the emperor of Rome.
Do you agree no one who worships the God of Abraham could possibly have voted for Obama?”
No, if ‘even the very elect’ can be deceived, then gullible and ignorant fools who vote with their lady parts are easy marks.
Exhibit #1: “ The Republicans are equally wrong about their disdain for the poor and their love of the rich.”
Ex-RINO has said written some inane things, but to cleverly suggest that ALL republicans have disdain for the poor and show uncritical admiration for people who have accumulated wealth, is patently and obviously false.
Liberals/progressives/democRATs show utter disdain for the poorest and weakest among us. The pre-natal child and in the next breath they boo the mere mention of GOD.
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am“…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote democRAT.”
Ex,
What percentage of your annual income do you ‘voluntarily’ give to the poor and please give us the name of the poor beggar you point to and tell your children, “When you grow up I want you to be just like her/him.”
Ex,
You should train your childrent be pick pockets and flim flam artists and target the wealthy among us. You obviously believe you have an entitlement to their wealth.
What an idiotic statement. Christ’s followers do all sorts of things unthinkingly or deluded-ly. We’re not perfect. NONE of us.
Bush II was an evil SOB that instigated the murder of God only knows how many innocents. Did everyone voting for him either time violate God’s will?
Probably, but certainly no worse than those stupidly voting for Obama.
Ex,
Have you gottent your 0’bama tatto yet?
Remember, when you go to Seattle the liberal food Nazi’s have declared ‘feeding the poor’ is verboten.
Hi Michael Maier,
Point taken. Lyndon Johnson supposedly had great “compassion” for the poor, but destroyed and devastated how many lives by involving us more deeply in Vietnam. Should Christians have supported him because of his “Great Society” programs, which by the way were a complete failure?
Mary,
Thank you for the youtube link to obamalism.
The only other thing that comes close to the this sort of mass mania is all those teenage girls squealing ecstatically for the beatles.
Is there a liberal version of conservatives going gahgah over Ronald Reagan or any other republican politician?
Hi Ken,
Glad you enjoyed. I well remember Beatlemania but at least you can excuse this among the young and impressionable. Also, what harm did it do? Kids grew out of it and moved on.
The video reminds me more of the enraptured admirers of Hitler.
Even our children sing to the Dear Leader as they did in Nazi Germany
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM&bpctr=1359829813
Be sure to watch to the end.
Ex-GOP,
We can certainly agree that salvation does not come from either political party! It comes from faith in Christ alone. And since there is no “care for the poor, immigrants, and the vulnerable” without them first having LIFE, I would imagine you’d agree that Scripture pertaining to life would certainly take priority.
FWIW, I am not a member of either political party. I take every candidate’s views and measure them against Scripture, and vote for the candidate who most closely follows Scripture. (I struggled in 2000 because I thought neither candidate believed Scripture, but ultimately voted for Bush because of his position on abortion, which was ultimately their only difference.)
Romney was not “my” candidate, nor is the GOP my party. I claim only the label of “Christ-follower.” All politicians are still men; I serve God.
Unfortunately we live in an age dominated by crass commercialism and consumerism. Both of these play right into the Obama playbook. Perception is reality, so we are told, and a great deal of what impacts perception is controlled by forces hostile to prolife advocacy. With the assistance of a hyper-partisan main stream media and its 24/7 obama-is-our-hero “news” it is somewhat understandable that some Christians would far prey to the distortions. Anecdotally speaking I know of several religious sisters whose blood runs democrat blue from their earliest years who seem oblivious to the realities swirling around us….”Oh, he (Obama) seems sincere and that other guy is for the rich” kind of thing. Lots and lots of people fell sway to this.They (the somewhat or moderate prolife Christians who voted for Obama) seem to think there is a trickle down dividend of wonderful things to come from Obama and this will spill into fairness for all. These wrong information voters go into the voting booth convinced that things will get better and it does not matter that Obama is not prolife.
Michael Maier says:
What an idiotic statement. Christ’s followers do all sorts of things unthinkingly or deluded-ly. We’re not perfect. NONE of us.Bush II was an evil SOB that instigated the murder of God only knows how many innocents. Did everyone voting for him either time violate God’s will?Probably, but certainly no worse than those stupidly voting for Obama.
Actually, we know that the number of innocent people killed by all the wars during the Bush years is orders of magnitude less than the number of innocent persons killed by abortion during the same period.
I voted for Bush’s reelection because we needed to finish rebuilding what we had broken in Iraq. Democrats intimated that our nation-building work was just “more war,” but Obama changed nothing in Iraq and stayed on the same course that McCain would have kept.
Obama has not changed the war activity at all — he just added a killer drone assassination program. But he has expanded the abortion program to include public funding, so we can all pay for it.
Hi Ken 12:32PM
Black people should also be wary of that great bastion of Democrat liberalism, Boston. All a white man who shoots his wife has to do is blame a black man and look what happens! Of course it helps that the white guy and his wife are well to do and she’s pregnant. Does the name Charles Stuart ring a bell?
Go to the last paragraph for a description of this incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_brute
This incident was also dramztized in the TV movie “Good Night Sweet Wife”.
X-GOP, I’ve lived in neighborhoods (in my early 20’s) where everyone was on welfare and didn’t work. I also (at my job) interacted with people who were employed and didn’t want more hours because it would interfere with their handouts. ONe was a very smart single mom. She was really great and I wanted to promote her to a management position but she didn’t want to because it would interfere with her welfare. So you can recite numbers all you want (if they’re even correct). It doesn’t make a difference. Welfare is not government’s role. Wouldn’t it be nice if neighbor helped neighbor? If families helped their members? Instead of demanding government take money from those who worked for it to hand it to those who didn’t?
I know men and women of faith who voted for Obama. Many of them quite frankly want him in office because he looks like they do. They oppose him on life, marriage and other issues, and they’d never vote for a white man or woman who believed the same things. I can’t fathom that, but it undoubtedly exists.
I think it’s funny when people who voted for Bush talk about how real Christians could never vote for Obama. Bush was pretty darn anti-life. But, he talked a good game and was a Republican, so I guess that’s okay.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if neighbor helped neighbor? If families helped their members? Instead of demanding government take money from those who worked for it to hand it to those who didn’t?”
Yeah, it would be nice. But neighbors will watch you starve or die of addiction rather than spend a dime to help you, in a lot of cases. Churches hang signs that say things like “we don’t help the homeless” so they won’t be bothered by those who need help, and secular organizations are no better.
If anyone ever comes up with a viable plan to get food, shelter, clothing, and medical care to those who need it without taking advantage of state and federal government I wouldn’t be opposed to it. But all I hear from the anti-safety net is that churches will take care of it (they won’t, and they aren’t even able to when it comes to medical care), or that neighbors will help each other (they won’t, and aren’t even able to when it comes to medical care).
Hi Jack,
Our city has many locally run charities, including several food banks, church and secular, thrift stores which support charities, the Salvation Army, mothers and infants homes, a battered women’s shelter, and a large church run homeless shelter.
Sadly, our social services departments are also very busy.
Unfortunately too many people are of the mentality that “the state takes care of “them”.” I don’t have to bother. There’s plenty of opportunity to volunteer and donate.
“Unfortunately too many people are of the mentality that “the state takes care of “them”.” I don’t have to bother. There’s plenty of opportunity to volunteer and donate.”
Yeah, and people die from this attitude. I can’t see it drastically changing, however, since a lot of people seem to have the attitude that people on the bottom deserve to be there, and it’s a waste of money and time to spend on them.
And even if a lot of people are very generous and donate their time and money to help, that doesn’t really even touch the issue of medical care and housing to the lower income people, especially the homeless and disabled. Emergency care for very low income people and the homeless is ridiculously high, most of them have multiple visits a year because their housing problems contribute to their illnesses. Communicable diseases and things like cancer can cost tens of thousands and I don’t think that charity is going to be able to cover that.
“Communicable diseases and things like cancer can cost tens of thousands and I don’t think that charity is going to be able to cover that.”
Nonsense. Churches and private charities are equipped with the latest in cancer treatment technology and would be able to furnish care to everyone who needs it if the lousy stupid federal government would just get out of the way.
…”a lot of people seem to have the attitude that people on the bottom deserve to be there, and it’s a waste of money and time to spend on them.”
I take exception with your premise.
A few people may have that attitude, but the vast majority of people do NOT believe that all ‘people on the bottom’, or even ‘most people on the bottom’, DESERVE to be there. [I believe your bias is showing.]
Children who are born in to poverty are more likely to learn and repeat the dysfunctions of the adults around them, particularly those of their parents/guardians. It has nothing to do with race, gender, nationality and nearly everything to do with culture/environment.
Even people who have grown up in successful, productive families can turn into pan handling mooches when they are in bondage to addictions.
Thomas Boon Pickens IV, 21 year old grandson of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, just died of a drug overdose involving Xanax and heroin.
[You liberals/progressives can relax. At least he wasn’t killed with gun and he was probably wasn’t a democRAT and he was not an ethic minority.]
My son-in-law has 10 year old student, who has six siblings, who’s single mom has just lost her job at Wal-Mart because her car broke down. I want to help this woman. Getting the woman a car will solve her immediate problem, but it will do little or nothing to address the underlying isssues that have entrapped her.
She wants her daughter to go to college and be a success in life. That alone makes me want to give the mom some help by giving her a car. You want to volunteer some of your hard earned cash to help her out? I bet I can come up with the name of her church and you can mail them a check and ask them to pass it along to the single mom of seven.
joan,
…and with a gov’t 16 trillion in debt and growing, I’m sure there will be plenty of money to pay for cancer treatment and infectious diseases. And it only gets better, the IRS estimates the “cheapest” health insurance policy in 2016 will be $20,000.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/33972-free-healthcare-irs-says-cheapest-obamatax-plan-is-20000/
Well Princess Pelosi did say we would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
Oh, and the unions ain’t too thrilled either.
http://semper-ratio.blogspot.com/2013/01/unions-discover-how-much-obamacare-will.html
I do agree with you joan about the lousy stupid federal government.
Joan, there you are!! How I’ve missed you!
(((()))))
I wonder if this is all part of the Dear Leader’s plan to eventually force all Americans into a single payer(government) universal system, not that it was ever his intention to do so or anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
Democrats at their convention booed God.
His observation that “class-envy passes for compassion, same-sex “marriage” is accepted as fairness, and contraception is considered a matter of healthcare – is about to reap the just rewards, not so much of a nation that has abandoned the principles of its Founding Fathers, but of a Church that has abandoned its founder and the mission He has given her” accurately states the condition of Christianity in America. Similar to Judaism during the 7th century B.C. They paid lip service to God and worshipped other deities.
The Democrats’ policies of “compassion” have done more harm to poor families than any other policy as they have destroyed the family headed by a man and a woman married to each other.
“A few people may have that attitude, but the vast majority of people do NOT believe that all ‘people on the bottom’, or even ‘most people on the bottom’, DESERVE to be there. [I believe your bias is showing.]”
Which bias is that? I have biases like everyone else, most from my personal experiences of people telling me when I was homeless (and underage, even) to get a job and stop doing drugs and that I only had myself to blame for my circumstances, when those type of circumstances are not as easy to get out of as people like to pretend. People on this board in general haven’t exactly shown me any different from those opinions. It seems like the majority of people seem to think that people in poverty put themselves there, are there willfully (whether it be from laziness or whatever personality flaws), and don’t want to be free from public assistance and poverty. It seems to me that’s the prevailing opinion towards those on assistance and those in poverty. This is mostly anecdotal, however.
“Children who are born in to poverty are more likely to learn and repeat the dysfunctions of the adults around them, particularly those of their parents/guardians. It has nothing to do with race, gender, nationality and nearly everything to do with culture/environment.
Even people who have grown up in successful, productive families can turn into pan handling mooches when they are in bondage to addictions.”
We do agree on this, which is why I disagree with the painting of low income people and those on assistance as “lazy and able-bodied”, it doesn’t take into account a multitude of things.
“You want to volunteer some of your hard earned cash to help her out? I bet I can come up with the name of her church and you can mail them a check and ask them to pass it along to the single mom of seven.”
Sorry, all my spare time and any time I have spare cash (barely ever) is wrapped up in helping homeless youth down here. I’m glad that you all are helping her out, though. And I think you are right that buying her a car might help short term but doesn’t fix the underlying issues in her situation. What other ways do you think that you and her church can help her in her situation?
Jack,
I am so very sorry that your life has been like it was. You certainly don’t sound like someone who fits anyone’s stereotype of the “lazy poor but able-bodied”… :)
I agree with you that it doesn’t help to “broad-brush” low income people (or anyone else for that matter). It is my observation that people rarely take resilience, resourcefulness, and tenacity of an individual into consideration regarding their future if they are “poor”, “low-income”, indigent”, or any other label someone might want to slap on them. This is the fatal flaw (fatal for the 55+ million humans in this country who’ve perished since 1973, and untold millions around the world) embedded in Margaret Sanger’s program to rid the country/world of “undesirables”.
To determine that someone “born in poverty”, “less-than-perfect-conditions”, or to parents/a parent “not ready to take care of another person” would end up in poverty themselves, in jail, indolent, and having “unwanted children” pulling on charity or welfare is to play God and assume omniscience because “they know” how that person’s life will go.
It seems to me that the best way to prove all of your naysayers wrong (in their assessment of you) is to forgive them, do the best you can for yourself, your children, and try to help others like you are already doing…
And the best way for those of us who truly believe that other people deserve (our) help is to…help them, as we are led. I know, Jack, that you don’t believe in God, but we can read in the Bible (God told Moses to tell the Israelites, and Jesus told us) that the poor would always be with us. This does not mean we should say, “Oh well, since there will always be poor people, I don’t need to do anything.” We do have a responsibility to help those to whom He leads us in the way He directs, and to influence their lives with compassion, kindness, and mercy. This would be a “game changer” for many, for others, maybe not so, but certainly in any case, it would change their condition, and change us.
Jill,
To answer the question, yes, a believer in the God of Abraham could have voted for Obama…if He instructed that person to do so (see Psalm 75:6-7, 1 Samuel 2:7, and Luke 1:52…)…I am reluctant to elaborate further, but what our President is doing and what he stands for is no surprise to our Creator. Maybe it is God’s way of showing Obama mercy…see Isaiah 55:6-9
Perhaps the more important thing is for us not to make judgments because we just don’t know…see Jeremiah 17…
God of Abraham is the the same god of Isaiah and Ismail. And Abraham is the connection between Islam Judaism and Christianity. To tie to electing Obama is not an arguement at all.. To not like someone is one but to justify it with God is obscene.
Marc Ace, what are you saying? Tie what or whom? I think that expecting, as Mr. Verrecchio does, somebody who believes in the God of Abraham to vote for rulers who will uphold Judeo-Christian morality, as Mr. Obama does not, is quite logical. It is a straightforward argument.
You seem to have read carelessly, however. Mr. Verrecchio was not merely disliking Mr. Obama. For all I know, he may have disliked Mr. Romney more, even though Mr. Romney got his vote. Voting for somebody based solely on his personal appeal is what got us into this mess, in which we have an incompetent and godless person holding the highest office in the executive branch of the government of the United States of America. Election of a president is not supposed to be a trivial popularity contest or beauty contest.
Voting for a man who is, at least, antagonistic on matters like aborion , is difficult. But it’s equally hard to vote for a man who believes that our God “was once like us” and that he may become a god himself, that Joseph Smith is an equal to our Lord, Jesus Christ, that the Holy Trinity is three separate and distinct gods.
Christians have decided that a specific subset of social issues are much more important than overall doctrine. Don’t get me wrong, they do believe in doctrinal purity, but only when it suits their political and social agenda. Had Harry Reid (also a Norman) run for president, evangelicals would have been screaming that he was the Antichrist, specifically pointing to his Mormon faith. But with Romney they not only ignored it, they rewrote their rulebook. When he was called “a good Christian man,” evangelical leaders said nothing, then he was described (more than once) as an evangelical and the silence was deafening. They sold out their faith and will be held accountable when they come before their Lord.
Not true, Tb. You are writing of an election of the president of the United States, not an election (if it even exists) of an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is no church at all but the sect we call Mormonism). As candidate, Mr. Romney was far from perfect, but his Mormonism was the least of his imperfections. And as Mr. Verrecchio has implied, Mr. Obama is a trillion times worse. (Trillion is a number that Mr. Obama has brought into the popular vocabulary.) Mr. Romney makes a creditable profession of Judeo-Christian morality, which the civil government is duty bound to uphold; Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid have no such creditable profession.
Here’s an association for you to consider: Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid are both Democrats. Mr. Romney is a Republican. There are many worthless Republican politicians, but the Democrats are a trillion times worse. As my mother always says, vote for the lesser of the two evils. At least, most Republicans believe in protecting Americans from murderers without (jihadis) and murderers within (abortionists). And Republicans do seem to be more concerned about balancing the books, i.e. they are the adolescents in the room. (No, I’m sorry, there aren’t any grown-ups. And for every Bush you name, I’ll give you Obama.)
Oops, I meant, “for every Bush you name” or accuse as being fiscally irresponsible, I’ll give you Obama.
LS wrote that “yes, a believer in the God of Abraham could have voted for Obama…if He instructed that person to do so.”
But He hasn’t. He speaks to us through His Word, the Bible.
LS wrote, “See Psalm 75:6-7, 1 Samuel 2:7, and Luke 1:52.”
I looked them up, and they all say that God humbles some people (and rulers) and exalts others. In fact, these verses agree with Mr. Verrecchio:
“As difficult as it may be to accept, the anti-Christian oppressor and purveyor of evil extraordinaire, Barrack Hussein Obama, is precisely what the American people and the Church that has failed to properly form them deserves. Yes, deserves….“
Not speaking of his own, Ex-GOP wrote, “That might be the stupidest opinion I’ve read in a long, long time. I could see an argument being made that Christians shouldn’t vote at all – but this cherry picking of important Biblical issues gets old. Yes, the Democrats are wrong on abortion. The Republicans are equally wrong about their disdain for the poor and their love of the rich.”
Wow! Putting a form of murder, expressed toleration of the actual deed, on the same level as the perception of emotions, which are subjectively judged. But isn’t judgement the duty of the civil government, which has the power of the sword? As the minister of God (see Rom. 13), it’s supposed to punish evil-doers. It’s not supposed to discriminate in favour of the rich–or in favour of the poor. It’s supposed to be fair. Equality for all, and all that. Freedom, you know. What claim do I have on the wallet of my neighbour?
Republicans don’t disdain the poor; Democrats depend on dependency. Bring back the old American! An interesting piece of history is this statement of G.K. Chesterton in his Father Brown story of “The Curse of the Golden Cross”: “Americans really respect work, rather as Europeans respect war. There is a halo of heroism about it; and he who shrinks from it is less than a man.”
According to Mark Steyn in “2012 Election Is the Last Exit Ramp before the Death Spiral,” in the last three years, [President Obama] has “created” 2.6 million new jobs — a number that does not even keep up with the number of (legal) immigrants who arrive each month. Obama does not “create” jobs, he creates disabled people: in the same period as 2.6 million Americans signed on with new employers, 3.1 million signed on at the Social Security Disability Office. Obama is the first president in history to create more disabled people than workers. He is the biggest creator of disabled people on the planet. He has disabled more people than the Japanese tsunami.
According to Mary on February 2, 2013 at 9:59 am, the city of Detroit has been run by Democrats for 50 years. Who has disdain for the poor? It’s in the Democrats’ interests to make and keep the poor dependent.
Jack Borsch wrote on February 2 at 3:09 pm, “I think it’s funny when people who voted for Bush talk about how real Christians could never vote for Obama. Bush was pretty darn anti-life. But, he talked a good game and was a Republican, so I guess that’s okay.”
President G.W. Bush was pro-life. His big fault was a trust in big government, which is not at all republican. He expanded it by creating the Department of Homeland Security, more parasitic bureaucracy which actually helps America’s enemies because it makes America even less fiscally secure. America’s the brokest people in history, but G.W. Bush pushed for the first TARP, anyway.
Invading Iraq after 9-1-1 and Iraq’s breaking of conditions after having been conquered by his father in the first Iraq war, President G.W. Bush was merely being a responsible head of state. It’s true that for some of the rationale, he relied on intelligence information that was ultimately erroneous, but hindsight is 20-20. Unlike President Obama’s invasion of Libya, President Bush received the approval of Congress for the invasion of Iraq.
Defense is the duty of the civil government. It’s true that President G.W. Bush himself never had to pick up a gun and stand in the line of fire, but nobody showed as much respect for American soldiers as he did and still continues to do. (There was an article about the fact that while President Bush has mostly stayed out of the public eye after becoming an ordinary civilian again, he did publicly attend an event that honoured American soldiers.) According to the Bible (Rom. 13), the civil government has the power of the sword. It’s used to kill, but the civil government is only supposed to use it to punish evil-doers, such as foreign aggressors, and when the civil government does so, it actually executes God’s justice. You might say that 911 hijackers and Iraqis are not one and the same, but I might reply that war is messy and the enemy does not follow nice, neat rules. The Iraq invasion actually did a lot of damage to Al Quaeda.
President G.W. Bush was pro-life. Unfortunately, he was also pro-big-government.
Jill Stanek asked, “Do you agree that no one who worships the God of Abraham could possibly have voted for Obama?”
As the Christian Hippie has already pointed out, there was the important qualification by Mr. Verrecchio of “invincible ignorance.”
However, I would still have to disagree. I personally know an Obama voter, a lady whose confession of the Christ I have no reason to doubt. She and her husband had difficulty to pay many medical expenses for their son as he was growing up and like Ex-GOP thinks universal national “health care” is a good and not an evil. I think she is somewhat ignorant or not cognizant of the evils President Obama has propagated, and I also think that she has the wrong priorities. All Christians are sinners, and we are all working towards a better understand of God’s will, the kingdom of heaven, but it’s hard to get out of the mire of Reality’s hell.
What I do wish to state in the strongest terms possible, however, is that invincible ignorance aside there isn’t one single solitary person who worships the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob whocould in good conscience cast a vote in favor of Barrack Obama.
I think that the statement is just a bit overstated. But not by much.
Some votors have never been seriously courted by the Republicans…Here I speak of many non-white votors.
Not being racist is not the same as actively courting votors of different skin color…
I understand that nonwhite groups are more targeted by abortion…and the other destructive policies of Pres. Obama and his followers.
And they have still chosen him…over the traditional white male from the country club… who does NOT connect with most of them!!!
So we really need to LISTEN to articulate Christian people who can explain…why they r still voted for Mr. Obama, as these reasons are some things the Republicans need to address.
I want to see (in no special order) Marco Rubio, Condoleeza Rice, similar non-WASP people hold at least one spot on the ticket!!!
Be ye therefore innocent as Doves but WISE as Serpents!!! (The Rep party overall…does NOT get the second half of this!!!
LoveMyDesignerGenes, consider the following article by Mark Steyn, “Who Are We?”, which appeared in the National Review (Happy Warrior) on January 30, 2013.
In my last column, I argued that culture trumps politics, since when many readers have demanded to know what exactly I meant. Well,look no further than the very first post-election issue Republicans were told they needed to address: getting on the right side of Hispanics by neutralizing the illegal-immigrant issue. A population perhaps the size of Australia’s or four mid-sized EU nations’ strolled into America and decided to stay. In doing so, they broke the law. Literally. That’s to say, some of the most basic laws of the nation lie shattered and discarded. Municipally, we have “sanctuary cities.” At the state level, Illinois is merely the latest to consider issuing driver’s licenses and other legal ID to persons who are in the country illegally. Federally, the president himself has decreed by executive order that the laws of the nation not be enforced — and, indeed, anybody minded to try enforcing them (Arizona) gets hauled into court.
This is a highly legalistic society with laws against everything and most of them with stiff jail sentences attached. Yet a group of squatters has rendered the law irrelevant. Four of the September 11 terrorists obtained the picture ID they used to board the plane through the illegal-immigrant day-worker network in the parking lot of the 7-Eleven in Falls Church, Va. But 3,000 corpses wasn’t enough to persuade either the citizenry or their representatives to end their indulgence of such networks. Indeed, it’s estimated that half of the “undocumented” have come here since 9/11: That’s to say, they broke into a country on Code Orange alert. The culture frames the issue, starting with the appropriation of language: These are “hard-working families” willing to do “the jobs Americans won’t do,” notwithstanding the strains they place on hospitals and schools, the contributions they make to gang crime and drunk-driving statistics . . . Once upon a time they were “illegal,” then “undocumented,” now just “immigrants,” a word with longstanding emotional resonance in America but nevertheless one that used to mean guys who stood in line at consulates, filled in the paperwork, and paid the application fees, and whose redefinition into something entirely different has been accepted as a fait accompli.
I was at Starbucks the other day and saw that Tony Bennett has another celebrity-duets album out. He releases them every 20 minutes: You can count on the fingers of one hand the guys he hasn’t sloughed off a duet with (Donald Rumsfeld, Herman van Rompuy, and Earl’s brother who lives off of Route 23 past the grain elevator and doesn’t come into town too much). But his latest duets set is an album with Latino superstars. He doesn’t speak the lingo, so he does his usual Anglo shtick, and then they warble back at him in Spanish and he chuckles occasionally as if he has a clue what they’re singing. But it’s his management’s way of cutting Tony in on a little of the action Latin-wise. That’s all the GOP are trying to figure out how to do: Like Tony Bennett, their fellow old white male, they’d like to reposition themselves to be where it’s at. Or at least on the general outskirts of where it’s at. On this issue, as the current panic demonstrates, politicians are the least of it: They’re playing catch-up.
Same with gay marriage. The culture has made up its mind on this and imposed (as we Westminster types say) a three-line whip on its caucus — the movies, the sitcoms, the respectable press. You can dissent for a bit if everyone knows you don’t really mean it (the president, whose thinking eventually “evolved” to what everyone knew it was anyway). But, if they think you do mean it, you must be cast out and banished (Carrie Prejean). A societal institution that predates the United States by thousands of years is being fundamentally redefined, and elected politicians are entirely irrelevant to the process.
Cultural pressures extend to the boardroom, too. “BP” stands for “British Petroleum,” but for the decade before that unfortunate Gulf spill their slogan was “BP — beyond petroleum”: They were an oil company ashamed of being an oil company. Warner Brothers, Universal, Paramount, and other mom-‘n’-pop operations demonized corporations as evil, and oil corporations as especially so, and so BP felt obliged to pretend in public that they spend 99 percent of their R&D budget trying to run a Honda Civic on bovine flatulence.
Meanwhile, American conservatives devote their energies to gassing up the Republican party’s tank enough to get it across the finish line every other November. It’s a very reductive view of the purpose of politics, even when it works. This year it didn’t work, and the usual tragedy degenerated into trouser-dropping farce: We thought we were arguing Obamacare and the economy and crippling debt, and they thought it was about sexist Republicans forcing contraceptiveless women back into their binders. And they were right. At a certain level, this is ridiculous: It’s like strolling onto the court into your tennis whites, playing a pretty good match, and discovering in the final serve of the final set that everyone else thinks it’s a game of buzkashi with you as the goat carcass.
Culture trumps politics. Culture trumps economics. On November 6, culture trumped reality — and delivered, as a Democrat in my state tweeted, “a binderful of awesome!” Binders? “The Life of Julia”? Lena Dunham? We ought to be asking why something so obviously risible was not obviously so to millions of voters.
Because the Left understands where the real victories are won: Politics is a battle, but culture is the war.
Um, you mean besides the fact that the republicans don’t care for the poor at all? That’s definitely what Jesus would have wanted, right?
What Jesus would have wanted? Are you implying that He’s still dead, Elly?
I’m quite sure, based on what I know of the Word, that the Lord Jesus does not want His minister of justice (see Rom. 13) to “care for the poor.” He wants His Church to do that. The Church is supposed to show His mercy to a world lost in and oblivious to its sin and guilt.
Note that “care for the poor” is not synonymous with “caring about the poor.”
Elly,
You were saying something about the Republicans not caring for the poor?
As I pointed out earlier, have you checked out the city of Detroit lately? Its been run by Democrats for 50 years.
I mean, alive, dead, whatever you want to believe, the bottom line is, Jesus clearly thought caring for the poor and destitute instead of looking down on them was important. Churches do help the poor, which is great! but relying on the private sector alone to give aid to those who need it doesn’t work, nor should it have to.
Detroit’s industry wasn’t good enough. That’s what happens in capitalism-there are winners and losers. I’m not saying that that’s a bad thing, just what is. There are plenty of other cities run by Republicans that have also failed. My home state is Wisconsin. I’ve seen firsthand the havoc that Republican governors can wreak…
Elly,
Please, you are obviously blissfully ignorant of the history of Detroit and its decline. This decline correlates with 50 years of liberal Democrats running the city. Name some cities run by Republicans that can compare to Detroit. BTW, before 2010, Michigan had 8 years of catastrophic rule, which did nothing to help Detroit, by Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm, who made her acting debut as an insane white woman at the Democrat National Convention.
You may be too young to remember Lyndon Johnson’s so called “Great Society” programs. The gov’t spent, or I should say wasted, trillions “curing” poverty. Do some googling as to how many black conservatives and non conservatives, argue that government involvement, i.e. the Great Society, did more to destroy the black family and create more poverty than it ever cured.
If you want waste, inefficiency, and complete lack of compassion Elly, then look to the gov’t to manage something. You are always wiser to view the gov’t like you do that bothersome, interfering relative who always causes more problems with their interference than they ever solve, and who, after creating havoc, always wring their hands and say “well, I meant well, now let me help you some more”.
Mary -
You are making a dumb argument. Detroit is a problem because the auto industry used to be huge, and now, while it is big, it isn’t as big as it once was. When a city is built on one industry, and that industry becomes more efficient and competitive over time, you around bound to run into issues. Two of the lowest crime rate, large cities in the country are San Diego and the Twin Cities. Both have had more democratic rule than GOP rule over the last many decades, but both cities have much different business make-up.
I’d give you some stats, but I’m sure you would butcher them, so we’ll skip those.
Sydney – Thanks for the response, and I agree, that would be great.
So are you backing away from your statement that most people getting government assistance are simply lazy? Or did you decide that the disabled and elderly are lazy people and should do more for themselves?
I think the worst of modern day Christianity is peaking through in this thread.
One of the beautiful things about the Bible and Christianity is that it strikes down the long list of laws that one must follow to be a true believer in Christ and simplifies the argument. No longer do we need to keep a long checklist of things that must be adhered to.
Christians can disagree on many social issues that are out there. Furthermore, and more importantly, Christians can disagree on the way to solve these various issues.
Trying to rid this country of abortions isn’t a cut and dry issue. Those saying “Romney vs Obama” was either going to lead to millions of abortions or zero abortions – those people are kidding themselves. It is one thing for a politician to say what they believe. It is another thing for them to act on something. It is an even farther, different, and more difficult thing for those actions to lead to results. The thought that Romney was going to come in and end abortion forevermore is just a fairy tale belief.
For years people have been trying to add words to the Bible. Christians don’t dance. Christians don’t like rock music. Christians wouldn’t even drink. Christians don’t smoke. Christians don’t eat certain kinds of meat on certain days.
And here we still try to make ourselves feel better by saying “No Christian would ever for Obama…those people that did THAT – they aren’t real Christians”.
How about you folks wake up, and try to understand why there are MILLIONS of Christians that have issues with the Republican party. MILLIONS of Christians don’t boil it down to a single issue because that issue isn’t as easily solved as many on this board try to pretend. And MILLIONS of Christians look at other beliefs of the GOP and don’t find it compatible with other beliefs that are held.
So stop trying to be these Biblical bullies – you sound like a bunch of cranky old people railing against dancing.
And yes, abortions kills millions – it should be more important than other issues and how dare I compare it with any other social issue or activity. There, I got it out of the way. I don’t treat it as a trump card of everything else because it isn’t a trump card of everything else. The best case scenario at the federal level is still a big mess that leads to millions of abortions.
Great question Jill!
First, I must answer in the affirmative. No Christian in their right mind, with any discernment at all, could exercise their God-given right and responsiblity to vote for a man who repeatedly voted to deny health care to needy children who were survivors of abortion. This wicked man promotes genocide and is in desperate, desperate need of our prayers. (Just like we all need and depend on the mercy and compassion of God.)
Second, if you can hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches in America, there are 3 main issues on God’s heart with respect to America: abortion, homosexuality and our support or lack of support for Israel. It is Obama’s actions on these issues that make him a candidate that a true worshipper of Jesus couldn’t vote for.
God’s judgments are coming to America. 9/11 was in the first wave. It exposed the breach in our divine protection. Getting a wicked ruler like Obama for a second term is another one of God’s judgments.
Our only hope is that there will be a large remnant that will wake up and be strong in faith and intercede and stand in the gap for our country without fear.
God have mercy.
EGV,
Don’t talk to me about a dumb argument. Industry rises and falls, citiy leaders have the foresight to plan for this and diversify and attract new business to their cities and towns.
Who’s been running Detroit for 50 years? Bingo.
http://www.davidjforan.com/detroit_liberal_destruction.html
Surely you have heard of the reign of Mayor Coleman Young.
EGV,
Sorry, link doesn’t work whether you type or click. Type in http://www.davidjforan.com and select “detroit-liberal destruction” from the menu on your left.
“To determine that someone “born in poverty”, “less-than-perfect-conditions”, or to parents/a parent “not ready to take care of another person” would end up in poverty themselves, in jail, indolent, and having “unwanted children” pulling on charity or welfare is to play God and assume omniscience because “they know” how that person’s life will go.”
Well, it’s true that not everyone coming from abusive, deprived, low income or indigent circumstances will always have a really rough time, but it’s also true that coming from those type of circumstances is statistically correlated with having more issues of that nature. Stuff like regularly working or getting to school, paying bills on time, etc etc are skills that aren’t often taught to those growing up in poor circumstances, and if they aren’t taught by example and by your parents when you are young, then it’s extremely difficult to learn and maintain these skills when you are an adult yourself. That’s not even to mention the mental and physical health issues that come from poor nutrition, no medical care, lack of safe places to get physical exercise, and child abuse and neglect that plague the lower income levels. People are disadvantaged coming from these circumstances, and that’s correlated with poorer outcomes, and more children which are taught the same terrible habits and deprived in the same way. And so it continues.
That doesn’t mean that everyone from these circumstances ends up perpetuating this. It just means that these are issues that are present and often ignored by the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” crowd.
“It seems to me that the best way to prove all of your naysayers wrong (in their assessment of you) is to forgive them, do the best you can for yourself, your children, and try to help others like you are already doing…”
Lol I don’t care what people think of me. I just bring up my origins in conversations like this to kind of humanize the debate about social services and poverty, drug addiction and abuse, I guess. People tend to lump those disadvantaged groups in one big pile of “lazy and immoral” and it’s not the reality way more often than not. Most people don’t ask to be poor and sick and I get tired of seeing how *most* people receiving assistance or in the lower income brackets are willfully there and don’t have unique challenges facing them. I think people who haven’t been there have trouble seeing the issues sometimes.
“And the best way for those of us who truly believe that other people deserve (our) help is to…help them, as we are led. I know, Jack, that you don’t believe in God, but we can read in the Bible (God told Moses to tell the Israelites, and Jesus told us) that the poor would always be with us. This does not mean we should say, “Oh well, since there will always be poor people, I don’t need to do anything.” We do have a responsibility to help those to whom He leads us in the way He directs, and to influence their lives with compassion, kindness, and mercy. This would be a “game changer” for many, for others, maybe not so, but certainly in any case, it would change their condition, and change us.”
Well yeah, I agree with you there (not about the God stuff, of course, but about it being everyone’s responsibility to help). I do think that a lot of people have this attitude about who *deserves* to be helped, which I think is mostly an excuse to avoid helping at all, from what I’ve seen.
“A population perhaps the size of Australia’s or four mid-sized EU nations’ strolled into America and decided to stay. In doing so, they broke the law. Literally. That’s to say, some of the most basic laws of the nation lie shattered and discarded. Municipally, we have “sanctuary cities.” At the state level, Illinois is merely the latest to consider issuing driver’s licenses and other legal ID to persons who are in the country illegally. Federally, the president himself has decreed by executive order that the laws of the nation not be enforced — and, indeed, anybody minded to try enforcing them (Arizona) gets hauled into court.”
Well, stop equating Latino-Americans to illegal immigrants, first of all. The majority of Latinos are here legally, so cut that crap out. I don’t see the point of draconian immigration laws, if you compare the success of other Latino groups to the Cuban immigrants (where legal immigration is extremely easy), you can see that Cuban immigrants assimilate quicker, start small businesses and put taxes and money into the economy, because they can easily get into the country, and face less stigma and barriers in starting business and getting work. So I don’t think the GOP has the right idea about immigration, we were built on mostly open immigration, and it made us the country we are today.
Clearly someone who worships the God of Abraham could vote for Obama, because millions did. Was it too unsubtle to ask “Was a vote for Obama displeasing to God?”
I anticipate that future poll questions will include “Are pro-lifers God’s elect, or what?” and “Is it possible that someone who supports abortion rights is saved? Why not?”
Great point LisaC.
I should have clarified. Many Christians voted for Obama blinded to his wickedness because of race or other social preferences. My implication was that they were deceived in doing so. Their vote was not true worship in spirit in and in truth.
It kind of gets back to the author’s invincible ingnorance qualifier.
Personally, I don’t how someone could possibly vote for a pro death President but I would not go so far as to question their salvation.
Elly wrote on February 3 at 11:27 am, “I mean, alive, dead, whatever you want to believe, the bottom line is, Jesus clearly thought caring for the poor and destitute instead of looking down on them was important.”
Elly, you’re quite wrong. First of all, the bottom line is that the Lord Jesus is alive. If He is still dead, then Christianity is useless. Read 1 Corinthians.
As for your “clear” “bottom line,” please provide proof. I might just as well say that the bottom line is that Elly is too lazy to go to the Bible and back up what he says.
Here’s my bottom line. When Judas Iscariot complained that the oil worth one year’s wages should have been sold and the money given to the poor (actually to himself because he was the treasurer and a thief), the Lord Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me” (Matt. 26:11). But He has not left His people without comfort; His Holy Spirit lives in them. Jesus’ mission was to save His people from their sins, to restore their broken relationship with God.
Elly wrote, “Churches do help the poor, which is great! but relying on the private sector alone to give aid to those who need it doesn’t work, nor should it have to.”
I question your assumptions, which could be interpreted as statist. How about allowing for a church sector as big and important as the government sector? Actually, aid from the “private sector” is much more effective than the useless, dependency-generating bureaucracy delivered by a “federal” government of 50 states and 300,000,000 people. You might be invincibly ignorant, but Obamacare is just a cynical ploy to make the Democrats the ruling party forever.
Lisa C. wrote on February 3 at 2:56 pm, “Clearly someone who worships the God of Abraham could vote for Obama, because millions did. Was it too unsubtle to ask ‘Was a vote for Obama displeasing to God?'”
Clearly Lisa lacks logic. Is it too terrible to contemplate whether a voter for Obama is displeasing to God? whether God might reject that voter’s worship? whether that voter’s God is really the God of Abraham or some other god (perhaps Mr. Obama)?
Actually, I like Lisa’s question; I just don’t like her certainty. As Mr. Verrecchio has expressed so well, the fact that so many self-professed Christians voted for Mr. Obama gives me reason to pause. A true Christian is never complacent. Read the four Gospels and the many warnings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Read the Old Testament prophets. Read of the apostle Paul’s self-flagellation (1 Cor. 9:27).
Ex-GOP started his cranky comment submitted at 1:17 pm by writing, “One of the beautiful things about the Bible and Christianity is that it strikes down the long list of laws that one must follow to be a true believer in Christ and simplifies the argument. No longer do we need to keep a long checklist of things that must be adhered to.”
Yes, the Lord Jesus condemns legalism in religion. In His Sermon on the Mount, He gave numerous examples, including hating my brother, which He called murder. In the same sermon, He also said to cut off any limb that causes me to sin (Matt. 5:30). He said a future in hell will be the consequence of not cutting it off. His demand of worship from the heart, spiritual worship and not legalistic form, is actually higher though less burdensome than the ceremonial ritual anticipating Him and the Pharisaic hypocrisy denying Him.
A few decades later, He said, “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what he has done.” Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. (Rev. 22:12,14-15)
Ex-GOP continued his comment submitted at 1:17 pm by writing, “Christians can disagree on many social issues that are out there. Furthermore, and more importantly, Christians can disagree on the way to solve these various issues.”
which social issues? In this thread we’re answering Jill’s question which has to do with a head of state, his hostility to Christianity, his fast-tracking of America’s implosion, and his subversion of the morality which he is supposed to uphold.
Ex-GOP continued, “Trying to rid this country of abortions isn’t a cut and dry issue. Those saying ‘Romney vs Obama’ was either going to lead to millions of abortions or zero abortions – those people are kidding themselves… The thought that Romney was going to come in and end abortion forevermore is just a fairy tale belief.”
Can you name of some of “those people,” please? the ones who thought that Mr. Romney would “come in and end abortion forevermore”?
Ex-GOP continued his comment submitted at 1:17 pm by writing, “For years people have been trying to add words to the Bible. Christians don’t dance. Christians don’t like rock music. Christians wouldn’t even drink. Christians don’t smoke. Christians don’t eat certain kinds of meat on certain days. And here we still try to make ourselves feel better by saying ‘No Christian would ever for Obama…those people that did THAT – they aren’t real Christians.'”
Your phrase about “adding words to the Bible” is a reference to Rev. 1:18-19: ”I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
Mr. Obama obviously was ignorant of the part of your comment which I discussed at 9:18 pm. He asked, “Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?”
How about these verses, from the same chapter which you referenced? Exclude perhaps the sorcery and idolatry which have to do with a relationship with God and are perhaps solely the jurisdiction of the Church, not the civil government. These verses says something about real Christians, and they really are in the Bible.
“Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” (Rev. 22:15)
Ex-GOP continued his comment submitted at 1:17 pm by writing, “How about you folks wake up, and try to understand why there are MILLIONS of Christians that have issues with the Republican party. MILLIONS of Christians don’t boil it down to a single issue because that issue isn’t as easily solved as many on this board try to pretend. And MILLIONS of Christians look at other beliefs of the GOP and don’t find it compatible with other beliefs that are held.”
I wasn’t aware that many on this board try to pretend that the problem of abortion in America is easily solved; in fact, I’m sure that you’re wrong. In fact, if you’ve read Rev. 22:15 that I’ve quoted twice above and will quote again below, even the Creator of the universe is pro-choice in the sense that He allows most sinners to remain sinners; they just can’t be with Him, to whom to know is life and to be apart from is death. ”Outside [the new Jerusalem, the kingdom of God] are… murderers…” (Rev. 22:15).
Other issues on which to find fault with the Democrat party? Well, the problem of abortion, the kind of violence to the most vulnerable in our society, which Democrats (and many Republicans) not only tolerate but believe to be a right, is a priority to address. It’s the civil government’s job to protect the most vulnerable in society from evil-doers, to give the oppressed justice and to punish the oppressor. I wouldn’t say abortion is a “trump card,” either, but neither would I go quite so far as you did:
“And yes, abortions kills millions – it should be more important than other issues and how dare I compare it with any other social issue or activity.”
To be fair to me and some other people on Jill’s site who have debated with you, in this thread I think you’ve only compared it to “Republican disdain for the poor and love of the rich.” We’ve talked about that imaginary problem already. At any rate, it can hardly compare with the very real threat of abortion to the lives of millions of Americans every year. As you yourself have said.
As for me myself–and Mr. Verrecchio above–there are many other reasons to question the sincerity or education of Christians who voted for Mr. Obama: his incitement of class envy, his belief in homosexual “marriage,” his treatment of contraception as a matter of health care, his confused theology and distortion of Scripture teaching (even in the area of Judeo-Christian morality, on which Mr. Romney has a much better grasp), his lies (most recently the Benghazi deception), his contempt for limits on authority (invading Libya without consent from Congress, the many czars, the multiplication of bureaucracy and then picking and choosing which legislation to enforce), and his incompetence, for which I have no need to go any farther than the TRILLIONS of dollars which he has added to the American debt–without anything to show for it.
Ex-GOP concluded his comment submitted at 1:17 pm by writing, “So stop trying to be these Biblical bullies – you sound like a bunch of cranky old people railing against dancing.”
You sound a little cranky yourself, Ex-GOP.
Speaking of a paragraph written by Mark Steyn, Jack Borsch wrote on February 3 at 2:54 pm, “Well, stop equating Latino-Americans to illegal immigrants, first of all. The majority of Latinos are here legally, so cut that crap out.”
Only you used the term Latino-American, Jack Borsch. The crap’s coming from you. What is a Latino-American, anyway? Isn’t he an American who happens to be Latino in origin? But illegal immigrants aren’t American citizens, anyway.
Mark Steyn used the term Hispanic. He wasn’t saying that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants; he may have been implying the reverse–all illegal immigrants are Hispanics–which I think happens to be a statement of fact, generally speaking. Contrary to what Ms. Napolitano seems to think, America’s illegal immigrants aren’t coming from Canada.
Here’s the relevant paragraph again, which Mark Steyn gave as an example that culture trumps politics:
The very first post-election issue Republicans were told they needed to address [was] getting on the right side of Hispanics by neutralizing the illegal-immigrant issue. A population perhaps the size of Australia’s or four mid-sized EU nations’ strolled into America and decided to stay. In doing so, they broke the law. Literally. That’s to say, some of the most basic laws of the nation lie shattered and discarded. Municipally, we have “sanctuary cities.” At the state level, Illinois is merely the latest to consider issuing driver’s licenses and other legal ID to persons who are in the country illegally. Federally, the president himself has decreed by executive order that the laws of the nation not be enforced — and, indeed, anybody minded to try enforcing them (Arizona) gets hauled into court.
Still speaking of the paragraph written by Mark Steyn, Jack Borsch wrote on February 3 at 2:54 pm, “I don’t see the point of draconian immigration laws.”
Can you give me an example of a draconian immigration law?
Jack continued, “If you compare the success of other Latino groups to the Cuban immigrants (where legal immigration is extremely easy), you can see that Cuban immigrants assimilate quicker, start small businesses and put taxes and money into the economy, because they can easily get into the country, and face less stigma and barriers in starting business and getting work.”
Cuba! Are you speaking of something in the recent past that I do not know? Cuba was for the longest time under the grip of a despot, Mr. Castro. I had thought that most people wanted to leave Cuba. What’s its rate of immigration relative to that of the United States?
“Only you used the term Latino-American, Jack Borsch. The crap’s coming from you. What is a Latino-American, anyway? Isn’t he an American who happens to be Latino in origin? But illegal immigrants aren’t American citizens, anyway.
Mark Steyn used the term Hispanic. He wasn’t saying that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants; he may have been implying the reverse–all illegal immigrants are Hispanics–which I think happens to be a statement of fact, generally speaking. Contrary to what Ms. Napolitano seems to think, America’s illegal immigrants aren’t coming from Canada.”
Latino and Hispanic aren’t particularly different terms. Latino refers to Latin American ancestory or origin, and Hispanic generally refers to those of Spanish-speaking origin or ancestry. I prefer to use “Latino” because it doesn’t exclude Brazilians and other Latin American immigrants that don’t speak Spanish.
“A population perhaps the size of Australia’s or four mid-sized EU nations’ strolled into America and decided to stay”
Australia has a population of over 20 million, and most experts put the amount of illegal immigrants (at least, Latino immigrants) in our country at about 11 million. So, he’s using hyperbole to exaggerate the problem. The rest of the points I made before still stand.
There are about 75,000 illegal Canadian immigrants in the US as well. Considering living conditions in Canada and Latin America, it’s not surprising that most of the people desperate to come here are from Latin America.
Concluding his remarks on a paragraph written by Mark Steyn, Jack Borsch wrote on February 3 at 2:54 pm, “So I don’t think the GOP has the right idea about immigration, we were built on mostly open immigration, and it made us the country we are today.”
Here’s something Mark Steyn recently said in a conversation on February 1 with Hugh Hewitt:
“I’m very relaxed about immigration. I think if you’re a, relatively speaking, if you’re a self-supporting, law-abiding individual, you should have the right to move among friendly countries at will. If a self-supporting Swede wants to come and live in Chicago, and he hasn’t got a criminal record, I don’t really see why he shouldn’t. But when you’re talking about mass immigration, particularly low-skilled mass immigration, there is no advantage to America and to American citizens in importing millions more dependents. I think, I do believe that you should basically have to take an oath that you will not be a drain on the public purse when you emigrate to a country. I’ve had to do that in countries I’ve lived in, and I think it’s entirely reasonable. I don’t see why I should have the right to move to Finland and go on Finnish welfare.”
Jack wrote at 1:08 am, “Australia has a population of over 20 million, and most experts put the amount of illegal immigrants (at least, Latino immigrants) in our country at about 11 million. So, [Mark Steyn’s] using hyperbole to exaggerate the problem.”
Wikipedia says (s.v. “Illegal immigrant population of the United States”), “The actual size and the origin of the illegal immigrant population in the United States is uncertain and difficult to ascertain because of difficulty in accurately counting individuals in this population. National surveys, administrative data and other sources of information provide inaccurate measures of the size of the illegal immigrant population and current estimates based on this data indicate that the current population may range from 7 million to 20 million. An often used number in 2008 is 11 million. This is a decline from the historic peak of 12.5 million seen in 2007.”
Mark Steyn had written, “A population perhaps the size of Australia’s or four mid-sized EU nations’ strolled into America and decided to stay.”
So, no, Mark Steyn was not exaggerating the problem.
Jack concluded at 1:08 am, “There are about 75,000 illegal Canadian immigrants in the US as well. Considering living conditions in Canada and Latin America, it’s not surprising that most of the people desperate to come here are from Latin America.“
Then we agree: generally speaking, illegal immigrants in the US are Hispanic.
“Cuba! Are you speaking of something in the recent past that I do not know? Cuba was for the longest time under the grip of a despot, Mr. Castro. I had thought that most people wanted to leave Cuba. What’s its rate of immigration relative to that of the United States?”
Yeah… I was talking about how our immigration policies toward Cuba are different than our immigration policies toward other Latin American nations, not about how objectively terrible Latin American leaders are (though I don’t think Castro is the worst that Latin America has to offer). We have very relaxed immigration policies for Cubans (as in, as a Cuban you can show up as my family did in the sixties, and you get amnesty almost automatically). Our loose immigration policy towards Cuba didn’t translate into higher crime rates or other issues, actual the Cuban American community in the US is doing pretty darn well comparitively.
Jon,
The question was whether the statement: “Ignorance aside, there isn’t one solitary person who worships the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who voted for Barack Obama” was valid. It wasn’t whether any citizen, or even any moral citizen, could vote for Obama, but rather what someone in the Judea-Christian tradition could. And I responded to that as a Christian. I cannot separate my voting from my faith any more than I could separate how I raised my children from it. That is not to say I have or will always vote for the believer over the non-believer. Very loosely rewriting (I was going to say Paraphrasing, but I’m straying too far) Luther, I would rather be ruled by a competent atheist, or even a devout Mormon, than an incompetent Christian. But I wasn’t responding to a general question but to a specific one regarding the last election.
What I was referring to was how the Christian leadership seemed to rally around Mr. Romney. Even leaders who have been telling their flocks for years that Catholics were ungodly heretics headed to the firey pit were curiously silent about a man who, as the Apostle Paul put it “preaches a different Jesus.” But even worse than that, they backed the wrong horse. Perhaps the original question should have been whether anyone who followed the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob could have voted in the last election, period.
The historical truth of Mitt Romney and abortion is very different from what he would have liked us to believe (and which many, many people did swallow whole). Obamacare looks a whole lot like Romneycare in many ways, save one major difference: Ever since Romney signed it into law on April 12, 2006, Romneycare has provided taxpayer funds for abortion, which has led to the killing of untold numbers of unborn children. And not just in the cases of rape or incest, Romneycare did and does provide for even late term elective abortions. http://www.massresources.org/commonwealth-care.html “Commonwealth Care health plans include…..abortion.” And Romney put Planned Parenthood on the state board he created that authorized those abortions.
If we use the terms right and left to describe not just political viewpoints, but social conservative ones as well, then American Right to Life is probably about as far to the right as you can get. Some would argue that they’re at the level of a fringe group. They even criticize Jill as being too “liberal.” But what they are is consistent on their stance on abortion. And they have accused Romney as having committed “a crime against humanity far beyond anything the Clintons or Barack Obama have been able to accomplish.” During the election season, they said “If you fear Obama, you’ll vote for Romney, If you fear God, you won’t.”
Jack, I was too careless in reading your comment of February 3 at 2:54 pm. I had thought you were talking about immigation into Cuba, not immigration of Cubans into the US.
Senator Marco Rubio is a Cuban immigrant. Here’s what Mark Steyn had to say about his new immigration reform plan (in the same Feb. 1 interview with Hugh Hewitt that I quoted earlier):
What I liked about Senator Rubio, who you know, is not entirely on my page on this immigration issue, is that he was actually hard-headed. He was saying this isn’t about swearing in 20 million new Americans. It’s actually about providing a conditional legal status, but we’re making no promises beyond that. Everything else has to be earned. And if they’re serious about that, and I am profoundly skeptical, but if they are serious about that, then that would be an indication that this is real attempt to correct, to correct a particular problem, rather than just the usual sentimentalized pap about that lousy poem chiseled on the foot of the Statue of Liberty. It would be a sign that serious thinking is going on.
Tb, you’re not making any sense to me. Let me seize on what statement you made that I liked: “I would rather be ruled by a competent atheist, or even a devout Mormon, than an incompetent Christian.” But then you said, “But I wasn’t responding to a general question but to a specific one regarding the last election.” Of course! The former sentence of yours is still the right answer.
But there are problems with it: (1) You imply that an atheist is intrinsically better than a Mormon, but they’re both unbelievers. (2) Barack Obama doesn’t have a creditable profession of faith. He’s not an incompetent Christian; he’s an incompetent secular humanist.
You said that “the Christian leadership seemed to rally around Mr. Romney.” Why not? Remember what office we’re considering here; the president of the United States does not normally give opinions on the Trinity, and when he does, they don’t necessarily mean much. As you said, a competent atheist might be preferable to an incompetent Christian. On the one hand, President Obama has said that he doesn’t think that the Bible should inform public policy. On the other hand, Mr. Romney has high personal moral standards which President Obama doesn’t (see my next comment); Mr. Romney really believes in Judeo-Christian morality. Even G.W. Bush, though he is an evangelical Christian, has made me cringe with statements about the good in all religions.
The historical truth of Mitt Romney and abortion was warped by your presentation. Romneycare is bad, but it is not a disaster on the same scale as Obamacare. There are many more differences among the United States and their 314 million people than among Massachusett’s 7 million. Also, Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states; a Republican governor can do only so much there. Jill Stanek–and I, too–decided to accept as genuine Mr. Romney’s conversion to more conservative (more Christian) thinking since his time as governor. I know that he is a politician, and good politicans are always as wise as serpents (to put it nicely), but he did commit himself to repealing Obamacare and to following Paul Ryan’s plan to budgetary discipline and something more akin to fiscal sanity.
During the election, President Obama’s campaign repeatedly attacked Mr. Romney on the issue of “women’s rights.” What does that tell you? In my next comment, I’ll go to the liberal Huffington Post for one article’s hostile statements from fellow Mormons. And, no, they’re not from Mr. Reid, who called Mr. Romney a liar because Mr. Romney was not releasing his income tax statements. When Mr. Romney ultimately did–though he was not required to so–it was obvious that Mr. Reid has been the liar.
Let me qualify this comment, somewhat like Mr. Verrecchio did his, by saying that I don’t think Mr. Romney would make an excellent leader for the United States. Mark Steyn was partial to Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann; I admire Rick Santorum. However, Mr. Romney was certainly the better of the two official candidates finally available. As my mother says, vote for the lesser of two evils.
Geoffrey Dunn wrote an October 11 article for the Huffington Post called “Horror Stories: Mitt Romney’s Shameful Record with Mormon Women.” Here’s one excerpt:
According to an account later written anonymously by Sheldon for the LDS [Mormon] women’s journal, Exponent II, it was after receiving this counsel from Williams supporting the potentially life-saving procedure [abortion] that she experienced an uninvited visit in her hospital room from her Mormon bishop at the time, 36-year-old Mitt Romney, who adamantly opposed the abortion. ”He regaled me with stories of his sister and her retarded child and what a blessing the child had been to the family,” Sheldon wrote of the incident. “He told me that ‘as your bishop, my concern is with the child.'”
Mr. Romney was younger at the time, and he might have spoken more sensitively now. But you will have difficulty to convincingly deny that he genuinely believed that abortion was wrong. Here’s another excerpt:
Indeed, Romney was so agitated about the matter that he confronted Sheldon’s parents about her decision as well. According to R. B. Scott, author of the insightful Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics, Romney’s only concern was for the unborn fetus. Last year, Scott, who is also a Mormon, interviewed Sheldon’s 90-year-old father, Phil Hilton, who remembered the incident quite vividly. “I have never been so upset about anything in my life,” he told Scott. “[Romney] is an authoritative type fellow who thinks he is in charge of the world.”
The article comes to a conclusion with this self-contradicting statement by a Mormon woman who is a college professor, Judith Dushku:
“He’s not a man who has anything like a moral core,” she says. “He’s very loyal to the Mormon church, pays his tithing, is faithful to his wife, and so on, but he doesn’t have a set of core values you can count on. I’ve known him for nearly 40 years. He may have a different suit on, but he hasn’t changed. His experience hasn’t changed. His performance was very consistent with the Mitt I knew back then. He can’t relate to average working women–teachers and nurses and care givers. He’s still coming from a place of privilege and entitlement.”
On February 2 at 2:21 pm, Mark wrote, “I know men and women of faith who voted for Obama. Many of them quite frankly want him in office because he looks like they do. They oppose him on life, marriage and other issues, and they’d never vote for a white man or woman who believed the same things. I can’t fathom that, but it undoubtedly exists.”
If a woman votes with her lady parts and a black his skin, then I question their faith. Aren’t they showing their true identity? God wants people to worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:24), not merely with the body and tradition.
Tribal America
On our suddenly race-obsessed politics
National Review
November 16, 2012
by Mark Steyn
To an immigrant such as myself (not the undocumented kind, but documented up to the hilt, alas), one of the most striking features of election-night analysis was the lightly worn racial obsession. On Fox News, Democrat Kirsten Powers argued that Republicans needed to deal with the reality that America is becoming what she called a “brown country.” Her fellow Democrat Bob Beckel observed on several occasions that if the share of the “white vote” was held down below 73 percent Romney would lose. In the end, it was 72 percent and he did. Beckel’s assertion — that if you knew the ethnic composition of the electorate you also knew the result — turned out to be correct.
This is what less enlightened societies call tribalism: For example, in the 1980 election leading to Zimbabwe’s independence, Joshua Nkomo’s ZAPU-PF got the votes of the Ndebele people while Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF secured those of the Shona — and, as there were more Shona than Ndebele, Mugabe won. That same year America held an election, and Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory. Nobody talked about tribal-vote shares back then, but had the percentage of what Beckel calls the “white vote” been the same in 2012 as it was in 1980 (88 percent), Mitt Romney would have won in an even bigger landslide than Reagan. The “white vote” will be even lower in 2016, and so, on the Beckel model, Republicans are set to lose all over again.
Hence the urge to get on the right side of America’s fastest-growing demographic. Only 27 percent of Hispanics voted for Romney. But all that could change if the GOP were to sign on to support some means of legalizing the presence of the 12–20 million fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community who are allegedly “social conservatives” and thus natural Republican voters. Once we pass amnesty, argues Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, “future immigrants will be more open to the Republican Party because, unlike many immigrants who are already here, they won’t have been harmed or insulted by Republican politicians.”
So, if I follow correctly, instead of getting 27 percent of the 10 percent Hispanic vote, Republicans will get, oh, 38 percent of the 25 percent Hispanic vote, and sweep to victory.
Everyone talks about this demographic transformation as if it’s a natural phenomenon, like Hurricane Sandy. Indeed, I notice that many of those exulting in the inevitable eclipse of “white America” are the same people who assure me that demographic arguments about the Islamization of Europe are completely preposterous. But in neither the United States nor Europe is it a natural phenomenon. Rather, it’s the fruit of conscious government policy.
According to the Census, in 1970 the “Non-Hispanic White” population of California was 78 percent. By the 2010 census, it was 40 percent. Over the same period, the 10 percent Hispanic population quadrupled and caught up with whites.
That doesn’t sound terribly “natural” does it? If one were informed that, say, the population of Nigeria had gone from 80 percent black in 1970 to 40 percent black today, one would suspect something rather odd and unnatural had been going on. Twenty years ago, Rwanda was about 14 percent Tutsi. Now it’s just under 10 percent. So it takes a bunch of Hutu butchers getting out their machetes and engaging in seven-figure genocide to lower the Tutsi population by a third. But, when the white population of California falls by half, that’s “natural,” just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.
Every four years, the Republican party pines for another Reagan. But Ronald Reagan, governor of California for eight years, couldn’t get elected in today’s not-so-Golden State. Jerry Brown, Governor Moonbeam back in the Seventies, now presides as Governor Twilight, lead vampire of a malign alliance of unionized bureaucrats and a swollen dependency class that maintains them in office at the expense of a remorselessly shrinking productive class. As the nation’s demographic profile trends ever more Californian, perhaps Norquist’s predictions of naturally conservative Hispanics pining for a new Reagan will come to fruition. Or perhaps Bob Beckel’s more crudely determinative analysis will prove correct — that, in a multicultural society, jostling identity groups will stick with the party of ethnocultural spoils.
Once upon a time, the Democrats thought differently. It was their first progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, who imposed the concept of “self-determination” on post–Great War Europe, insisting that the multicultural empires of the Habsburgs and Romanovs be replaced by a patchwork of ethnic statelets from the Balkans to the Baltics. He would be surprised to find his own party presiding over a Habsburgian America of bilingual Balkanization as a matter of electoral strategy.
The short history of the Western Hemisphere is as follows: North America was colonized by Anglo-Celts, Central and South America by “Hispanics.” Up north, two centuries of constitutional evolution and economic growth; down south, coups, corruption, generalissimos, and presidents-for-life. None of us can know the future. It may be that Charles Krauthammer is correct that Hispanics are natural Republicans merely pining for amnesty, a Hallmark Cinco de Mayo card, and a mariachi band at the inaugural ball. Or it may be that, in defiance of Dr. Krauthammer, Grover Norquist, and Little Mary Sunshine, demographics is destiny and, absent assimilationist incentives this country no longer imposes, a Latin American population will wind up living in a Latin American society. Don’t take it from a right-wing bigot like me, take it from the New York Times. In 2009, Jason DeParle filed a story about suburban Maryland, in which he helpfully explained the municipality of Langley Park to Times readers:
Now nearly two-thirds Latino and foreign-born, it has the aesthetics of suburban sprawl and the aura of Central America. Laundromats double as money-transfer stores. Jobless men drink and sleep in the sun. There is no city government, few community leaders, and little community.
Golly. You’d almost get the impression that Mr. DeParle thinks that laundromats doubling as money-transfer stores, jobless men drinking and sleeping in the sun, and dysfunctional government are somehow characteristic of Central America. That sounds awfully judgmental for a Times man, no?
Republicans think they’re importing hardworking immigrants who want a shot at the American Dream; the Democrats think they’re importing clients for Big Government. The Left is right: Just under 60 percent of immigrants receive some form of welfare. I see the recent Republican proposals for some form of amnesty contain all sorts of supposed safeguards against gaming the system, including a $525 application fee for each stage of the legalization process. On my own recent visit to a U.S. Immigration office, I was interested to be told that, as a matter of policy, the Obama administration is now rubberstamping all “fee waiver” requests for “exceptional hardship” filed by members of approved identity groups. And so it will go for all those GOP safeguards. While Canada and Australia compete for high-skilled immigrants, America fast-tracks an unskilled welfare class of such economic benefit to their new homeland they can’t even afford a couple of hundred bucks for the necessary paperwork.
It’s hardly their fault. If you were told you could walk into a First World nation and access free education, free health care, free services in your own language, and have someone else pay your entrance fee, why wouldn’t you? So, yes, Republicans should “moderate” their tone toward immigrants, and de-moderate their attitude to the Dems who suckered the GOP all too predictably. Decades of faintheartedness toward some of the most destabilizing features of any society, including bilingualism (take it from a semi-Belgian Canadian), have brought the party to its date with destiny. Or as Peggy Lee sang long ago in a lost land, “Mañana is soon enough for me.”
On February 2 at 12:32 pm, Ken the Birther asked Ex-GOP, “Have you gottent your 0?bama tatto yet? Remember, when you go to Seattle the liberal food Nazi’s have declared ‘feeding the poor’ is verboten.”
Not only Seattle, Ken. Also New York City. Democrat disdain for the poor, I guess.
http://ezralevant.com/2012/12/bloomberg-handcuffs-help-for-t.html
Glenn Richter shares the shocking story of how NYC’s Mayor shut down his efforts to take food from his synagogue to the homeless.
Here’s Mark Steyn’s answer to Jill’s question. You’ll see that he emphasizes the “invincible ignorance” part of Mr. Verrecchio’s answer.
President of the Future
Unfortunately the rest of us have to live in Obama’s present.
National Review
September 29, 2012
by Mark Steyn
One of the reasons why Barack Obama is regarded as the greatest orator of our age is that he’s always banging on about some other age yet to come — e.g., the Future! A future of whose contours he is remarkably certain and boundlessly confident: The future will belong to nations that invest in education because the children are our future, but the future will not belong to nations that do not invest in green-energy projects because solar-powered prompters are our future, and most of all the future will belong to people who look back at the Obama era and marvel that there was a courageous far-sighted man willing to take on the tough task of slowing the rise of the oceans because the future will belong to people on viable land masses. This futuristic shtick is a cheap’n’cheesy rhetorical device (I speak as the author of a book called “After America,” whose title is less futuristic than you might think) but it seems to play well with the impressionable Obammysoxers of the press corps.
And so it was with President Obama’s usual visionary, inspiring, historic, etc., address to the U.N. General Assembly the other day: “The future must not belong to those who bully women,” he told the world, in a reference either to Egyptian clitoridectomists or the Republican party, according to taste. “The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians,” he added. You mean those Muslim guys? Whoa, don’t jump to conclusions. “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam,” he declared, introducing to U.S. jurisprudence the novel concept of being able to slander a bloke who’s been dead for getting on a millennium and a half now. If I understand correctly the cumulative vision of the speech, the future will belong to gay feminist ecumenical Muslims. You can take that to the bank. But make no mistake, as he would say, and in fact did: “We face a choice between the promise of the future or the prisons of the past, and we cannot afford to get it wrong.” Because if we do, we could spend our future living in the prisons of the past, which we forgot to demolish in the present for breach of wheelchair-accessibility codes.
And the crowd went wild! Well, okay, they didn’t. They’re transnational bureaucrats on expense accounts, so they clapped politely, and then nipped out for a bathroom break before the president of Serbia. But, if I’d been one of the globetrotting bigwigs fortunate enough to get an invite — the prime minister of Azerbaijan, say, or the deputy tourism minister of Equatorial Guinea — I would have responded: Well, maybe the future will belong to those who empower women and don’t diss Mohammed. But maybe it’ll belong to albino midgets who wear pink thongs. Who knows? Que sera sera, whatever will be will be, the future’s not ours to see. But one thing we can say for certain is that the future will not belong to broke losers. You’re the brokest guy in the room, you’re the president of Brokistan. You’ve got to pay back $16 trillion just to get back to having nothing, nada, zip. Who the hell are you to tell us who the future’s going to belong to?
The excitable lads around the globe torching American embassies with impunity seem to have figured this out, even if the striped-pants crowd at Turtle Bay are too polite to mention it. Obama is not the president of the Future. He is president right now, and one occasionally wishes the great visionary would take his eye off the far-distant horizon where educated women and fire-breathing imams frolic and gambol side by side around their Chevy Volts, to focus on the humdrum present where the rest of us have the misfortune to live.
In the America over which Barack Obama has the tedious chore of actually presiding, second-quarter GDP growth was revised down from 1.7 percent to 1.3 percent — or, in layman’s terms, from “barely detectable” to “comatose.” Orders of durable goods fell by 13.2 percent — or, as Obama would say, the future must not belong to people who own household appliances. Growth of capital stock (which basically measures investment in new equipment and software — or, as Obama would put it, investment in “the future”) is at its lowest since records began. There are 261,000 fewer payroll jobs than when Obama took office — in a nation where (officially) 100,000 immigrants arrive every month. A few weeks ago, an analysis of government employment data by the nation’s oldest outplacement firm, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, discovered that, of the 4,319,000 new American jobs created since January 2010, 2,998,000 — or about 70 percent — went to people aged 55 or older. This is a remarkable statistic, even in a land of 31-year-old schoolgirls like Sandra Fluke. You’d almost begin to get the vague, unsettling feeling that the future does not belong to Americans aged 54 and younger.
No doubt living in Obama’s future will be peachy. But in the meantime we have to live in his present — the one he’s nominally in charge of, the only one available. It is tempting to compare him to a great magician, artfully producing flags of many lands from his breast pocket while misdirecting the audience. In fact, Obama’s misdirection isn’t even that good: In essence, he’s promising to perform spectacular tricks at some unspecified point in the future even as he stands on stage with an empty top hat, and the girl in spangled tights he sawed in half is bleeding all over the floor.
Two weeks ago in this space, I wrote that, in striking contrast to the official line, the Benghazi slaughter was not a spontaneous movie review that got a little out of hand but a catastrophic security breach and humiliating fiasco for the United States. Even more extraordinary, on September 14, fewer than two-dozen inbred, illiterate goatherds pulled off the biggest single destruction of U.S. airpower since the Tet Offensive in 1968, breaking into Camp Bastion (an unfortunate choice of name) in Afghanistan, killing Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Raible, and blowing up a squadron’s worth of Harriers. And, even though it was the third international humiliation for the United States in as many days, it didn’t even make the papers. Because the court eunuchs at the media are too busy drooling over Obama’s appearance as what he calls “eye candy” on the couch between Barbara and Whoopi.
Eye candy is in the eye of the beholder. And to the baying mob from Tunis to Jakarta those dead Americans and al-Qaeda flags over U.S. embassies and an entire USMC air squadron reduced to charred ruins are a veritable Willie Wonka production line of eye candy. To the president, they’re just “bumps in the road” to the sunlit uplands of “the future.” Forward! Obama has lived on “the promise of the future” all his life — Most Promising Columbia Grad of 1983, Most Promising Community Organizer of 1988, Most Promising Fake Memoirist of 1995, Most Promising Presidential Candidate of 2008 . . . The rest of us, alas, have to live in the present that he has made, which is noticeably short of promise. The Chinese Politburo get it, Czar Putin in the Kremlin gets it, and even the nutters doing the “Death to the Great Satan!” dance on the streets of Cairo and Lahore get it. On November 6, we will find out whether the American people do.
I agree, and this is why:
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” ~ Matthew 6:24
No one who truly serves God could vote for the same-sex marriage-pushing, freedom-of-religion-crushing, abortion president.
Aside from “invincible ignorance” you mean, Andrew.
Democracies can only function as they are theoretically supposed to if voters are informed and educated and have an interest in ruling well (as opposed to signing up for the dole).
Jon, I’m sorry, but no. Ignorance of something so visible can only be due to sinful negligence of Christian duty.
But, Andrew, what about the new Christian convert? and the idealistic college student still deceived by his unbelieving professors? And I think there might be more cases of low-information voters who truly (but imperfectly) serve God.
Can you serve God without loving Him? Can you love God without knowing Him? Can you know God if you don’t know His commands?
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” – John 14:15
I can only grant an exception with the new convert who is still getting to know God. The student, if his faith is real, should be more earnest in his truth-seeking. Obama’s betrayal of all things Christian is far, far too visible.
Mike Huckabee’s answer to Jill’s question was given in the “Test of Fire” ad before November 6, 2012.
“Christians across the nation will have an opportunity to shape the future for our generation and generations to come. Many issues are at stake, but some issues are not negotiable: the right to life from conception to natural death. Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for the government to force the church to buy the kind of insurance that leads to the taking of innocent human life.
“Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity. Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? This is Mike Huckabee asking you to join me November the 6th and vote based on values that will stand the test of fire.”
Why do so many believers shun Biblical values while voting? Joseph Mattera had an exceedingly relevant article on October 20, 2012 in Charisma News.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/34348-many-believers-shun-biblical-values-in-an-election
Here are two excerpts:
Many years ago, as a pastor and traveling teacher, I was shocked to find out that many of my dear pastor friends, as well as the majority of the ethnic congregations they oversee, voted for Democratic candidates, even if their platforms were contrary to standard biblical values in regards to issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. In private conversations with these pastors and their congregants we had almost total agreement on every major moral issue. But come Election Day, in my opinion, they voted against the values they preached on Sunday and practiced in private.
Regarding African-Americans (who make up a large percentage of my close personal friendships and of whom I consider the brightest, most capable leaders on the planet), many of them (even many conservative Bible-believing Christians) seem to often vote en masse for liberal candidates with few exceptions. For example, even many of the most conservative black Christians I know voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election, which shocked me! One conservative black pastor gave himself a pass for voting for Obama when he told me, “Sometimes you have to kiss a witch on the lips so you can slap the devil in the face!”
…
Finally, Conservative Christians who vote Republican may also say that abortion and same-sex marriage violate some of the major tenets of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20): “You shall not kill” (sixth commandment) and “You shall not commit adultery” (seventh commandment) because adultery is a category that is expanded upon in Leviticus 18 which includes not only heterosexual adultery but homosexuality. If we put first the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33) and His top-ten list, thenGod promises He will provide for us anyway (Jeremiah 17:7-8; Psalm 1). Thus, when we put race, color, ethnicity or economic benefits before God’s commandments we are violating the first commandment of having no other gods before Him! God has to be first, not our color, ethnicity or groupthink.
Read the article to know his reasons that most African-American Christians still voted for Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the last presidential election. Find suggestions on how Republicans should respond.
The comments on Joseph Mattera’s article are very revealing, too.
When I first saw the house in that photo I thought it was a picture from Breezy Point.
Houses built on sand.
Louie Verrecchio wrote, “The United States – a land wherein class-envy passes for compassion, same-sex “marriage” is accepted as fairness, and contraception is considered a matter of healthcare – is about to reap the just rewards, not so much of a nation that has abandoned the principles of its Founding Fathers, but of a Church that has abandoned its founder and the mission He has given her…”
And he wrote, “At the end of the day, America’s woes can be boiled down to good old-fashioned godlessness; either the majority of the electorate is with the Lord or against Him. In the case of election 2012, the latter prevailed and the reason is simple: The Church has gone astray.“
What Louie Verrecchio is for Roman Catholicism, Joseph Mattera seems to be for charismatics. For his November 5 Charisma News article “Should a Christian Vote for Barack Obama?” he concluded,
“The truth of the matter is that the Bible is a holistic document, one that gives us principles for all of life. But many in the body of Christ today do not possess a biblical worldview. And as such, they rearrange the roles that God clearly ordained for the church and that which he set aside for civil government, they confuse the imposition of morality with the imposition of salvation—and in the process of renewing their hearts, they forget to renew their minds.
“I can’t speak to the personal relationship that either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama has with Jesus Christ. But deciphering which of the two operates closer to a biblical worldview? Please. Even Blind Bartimaeus knows that answer.“
Jason Mattera wrote the article “Should a Christian Vote for Barack Obama?” in response to the Rev. Dennis Dillon, publisher of the Christian Times, who had recently written an article called, “Why Christians Should Vote for Barack Obama” (which doesn’t appear to be online). Mr. Dillon mentioned Mr. Mattera by name, attempting to rebut Mr. Mattera’s article, “Why Do So Many Believers Shun Biblical Values While Voting?”
I did find online the transcript of an interview with Mr. Dillon. It supports the following paragraphs in Mr. Mattera’s article “Why Do So Many Believers Shun Biblical Values While Voting?”, the same article which Mr. Dillon was attempting to rebut.
“Republicans emphasize individual liberty and are opposed to big government while the Democrats support a large central government. What’s the big deal with this? Well, blacks make up about 20% of the workforce of federal, state and local government jobs, which also connects them heavily to the unions, which vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Also, their salaries, pensions and financial wellbeing are connected to higher taxes. Enough said.
“For example, “‘In 2009, the average net worth for white households was $113,149 and $5,700 for black households.’ 14.1% of black Americans are unemployed compared to 7.4 percent of whites.” (Read ‘5 Reasons There are So Few Black Americans in the Republican Party’ by John Hawkins).
“Thus, blacks will depend more on the short-term immediate help that comes from entitlements that Democrats push. By and large, the Democrats see government as the solution and the conservative Republicans see big government as the problem! Another reason why African-Americans support a large central government is because it has historically been the federal government that has intervened on their behalf against racism.”
Read the transcript of Mary Alice Miller’s September 2008 interview, “Interview: Rev. Dennis Dillon asks Blacks to “move our money” from Bank of America,” http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/340/editorials/editorials . Rev. Dennis Dillon is introduced as the “pastor of the Brooklyn Christian Center and author of the annual Economic State of Black New York Report.” He frequently speaks of the “Black community” but never of the Church or America. He appears to be another Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, who are “are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (1 Tim. 6:4).
Andrew Ensly’s 11:33 am comment deserves reiteration here:
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money” (Matt. 6:24).
Concluding Rahiel Tesfamariam’s answer to Jill’s question, “President Obama: Why I’m voting for him — as a Christian,” she wrote the following:
“When I heard President Obama quote President Lincoln say that he has been ‘driven to [his] knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that [he] had no place else to go,’ I knew that I was supporting the right candidate: one whose humility will keep his eyes constantly set on God. But most importantly, a person whose sense of calling is rooted in sacrificial service to others.”
Rahiel Tesfamariam is a columnist and blogger for the Washington Post and the Root DC. She is the founder/editorial director of Urban Cusp, an “online lifestyle magazine highlighting progressive urban culture, faith, social change and global awareness.”
Founded in 2008, the Root claims to be the “leading online source of national and international news and commentary from an African-American perspective.”
an article on the humility of Obama
Obama Goes Henry VIII on the Church
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-339789-one-catholic.html
February 10, 2012
Announcing his support for Commissar Sebelius’ edicts on contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion, that noted theologian the Most Reverend Al Sharpton explained: “If we are going to have a separation of church and state, we’re going to have a separation of church and state.”
Thanks for clarifying that. The church model the young American state wished to separate from was that of the British monarch, who remains to this day Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This convenient arrangement dates from the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The title of the law gives you the general upshot, but, just in case you’re a bit slow on the uptake, the text proclaims “the King’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England.” That’s to say, the sovereign is “the only supreme head on earth of the Church” and he shall enjoy “all honors, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities to the said dignity,” not to mention His Majesty “shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be.”
Welcome to Obamacare.
The president of the United States has decided to go Henry VIII on the Church’s medieval ass. Whatever religious institutions might profess to believe in the matter of “women’s health,” their pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities and immunities are now subordinate to a one-and-only supreme head on earth determined to repress, redress, restrain and amend their heresies. One wouldn’t wish to overextend the analogy: For one thing, the Catholic Church in America has been pathetically accommodating of Beltway bigwigs’ ravenous appetite for marital annulments in a way that Pope Clement VII was disinclined to be vis-a -vis the English king and Catherine of Aragon. But where’d all the pandering get them? In essence, President Obama has embarked on the same usurpation of church authority as Henry VIII: as his Friday morning faux-compromise confirms, the continued existence of a “faith-based institution” depends on submission to the doctrinal supremacy of the state.
“We will soon learn,” wrote Dr. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “just how much faith is left in faith-based institutions.” Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s vicar on earth, has sportingly offered to maintain religious liberty for those institutions engaged in explicit religious instruction to a largely believing clientele. So we’re not talking about mandatory condom dispensers next to the pulpit at St. Pat’s – not yet. But that is not what it means to be a Christian: The mission of a Catholic hospital is to minister to the sick. When a guy shows up in Emergency, bleeding all over the floor, the nurse does not first establish whether he is Episcopalian or Muslim; when an indigent is in line at the soup kitchen the volunteer does not pause the ladle until she has determined whether he is a card-carrying Papist. The government has redefined religion as equivalent to your Sunday best: You can take it out for an hour to go to church, but you gotta mothball it in the closet the rest of the week. So Catholic institutions cannot comply with Commissar Sebelius and still be in any meaningful sense Catholic.
If you’re an atheist or one of America’s ever more lapsed Catholics, you’re probably shrugging: what’s the big deal? But the new Act of Supremacy doesn’t stop with religious institutions. As Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, put it: “If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by this mandate.” And so would any of his burrito boys who object to being forced to make “health care” arrangements at odds with their conscience.
None of this should come as a surprise. As Philip Klein pointed out in the American Spectator two years ago, the Obamacare bill contained 700 references to the Secretary “shall,” another 200 to the Secretary “may,” and 139 to the Secretary “determines.” So the Secretary may and shall determine pretty much anything she wants, as the Obamaphile rubes among the Catholic hierarchy are belatedly discovering. His Majesty King Barack “shall have full power and authority to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities whatsoever they be.” In my latest book, I cite my personal favorite among the epic sweep of Commissar Sebelius’ jurisdictional authority:
“The Secretary shall develop oral healthcare components that shall include tooth-level surveillance.”
Before Obama’s Act of Supremacy did the English language ever have need for such a phrase? “Tooth-level surveillance”: From the Declaration of Independence to dentured servitude in a mere quarter-millennium.
Henry VIII lacked the technological wherewithal to conduct tooth-level surveillance. In my friskier days, I dated a girl from an eminent English Catholic family whose ancestral home, like many of the period, had a priest’s hiding hole built into the wall behind an upstairs fireplace. These were a last desperate refuge for clerics who declined to subordinate their conscience to state authority. In my time, we liked to go in there and make out. Bit of a squeeze, but it all adds to the fun – as long as you don’t have to spend weeks, months and years back there. In an age of tooth-level surveillance, tyranny is subtler, incremental but eminently enforceable: regulatory penalties, denial of licenses, frozen bank accounts. Will the Church muster the will to resist? Or (as Archbishop Dolan’s pitifully naïve remarks suggest) will this merely be one more faint bleat lost in what Matthew Arnold called the “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of the Sea of Faith?
In England, those who dissented from the strictures of the state church came to be known as Nonconformists. That’s a good way of looking at it: The English Parliament passed various “Acts of Uniformity.” Why? Because they could. Obamacare, which governmentalizes one-sixth of the U.S. economy and microregulates both body and conscience, is the ultimate Act of Uniformity. Is there anyone who needs contraception who can’t get it? Taxpayers give half-a-billion dollars to Planned Parenthood, which shovels out IUDs like aspirin. Colleges hand out free condoms, and the Washington Post quotes middle-aged student “T Squalls, 30” approving his university’s decision to upgrade to the Trojan “super-size Magnum.”
But there’s still one or two Nonconformists out there, and they have to be forced into ideological compliance. “Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment,” Melinda Henneberger of the Washington Post offered to Chris Matthews on MSNBC. At the National Press Club, young Catholics argued that the overwhelming majority of their co-religionists disregard the Church’s teachings on contraception, so let’s bring the vox Dei into alignment with the vox populi. Get with the program, get with the Act of Uniformity.
The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: First, other pillars of civil society are crowded out of the public space; then, the individual gets crowded out, even in his most private, tooth-level space. President Obama, Commissar Sebelius and many others believe in one-size-fits all national government – uniformity, conformity, supremacy from Maine to Hawaii, for all but favored cronies. It is a doomed experiment – and on the morning after it will take a lot more than a morning-after pill to make it all go away.
an article on the sacrificial service of President Obama
The Royal Presidency
Obama lives better than kings
National Review
December 8, 2012
by Mark Steyn
From the New York Daily News:
“Snooki Gives Kate Middleton Advice on Being a New Parent.”
Great! Maybe Kate could return the favor and give Snooki and her fellow Americans some advice. About fiscal prudence, for example. Say what you like about a high-living, big-spending, bloated, decadent, parasitical, wastrel monarchy, but, compared to the citizen-executive of a republic of limited government, it’s a bargain. So, while the lovely Duchess of Cambridge nurses her baby bump, the equally radiant president of the United States nurses his ever more swollen debt belly. He and his family are about to jet off on their Christmas vacation to watch America slide off the fiscal cliff from the luxury beach resort of Kailua. The cost to taxpayers of flying one man, his wife, two daughters, and a dog to Hawaii is estimated at $3,639,622. For purposes of comparison, the total bill for flying the entire royal family (Queen, princes, dukes, the works) around the world for a year is £4.7 million — or about enough for two Obama vacations.
According to the USAF, in 2010 Air Force One cost American taxpayers $181,757 per flight hour. According to the Royal Canadian Air Force, in 2011 the CC-150 Polaris military transport that flew William and Kate from Vancouver to Los Angeles cost Her Majesty’s Canadian subjects $15,505 per hour — or about 8/100ths of the cost.
Unlike a republic, monarchy in a democratic age means you can’t go around queening it. That RCAF boneshaker has a shower the size of a phone booth, yet the Duchess of Cambridge looked almost as glamorous as Snooki when she emerged onto the steps at LAX. That’s probably because Canada’s 437 Squadron decided to splash out on new bedding for the royal tour. Amanda Heron was dispatched to the local mall in Trenton, Ontario, and returned with a pale blue and white comforter and matching pillows. Is there no end to the grotesque indulgence of these over-pampered royal deadbeats? “I found a beautiful set,” said Master-Corporal Heron. “It was such a great price I bought one for myself.”
Nevertheless, Canadian journalists and politicians bitched and whined about the cost of this disgusting jet-set lifestyle nonstop throughout the tour. At the conclusion of their official visit to California, Their Royal Highnesses flew on to Heathrow with their vast entourage of, er, seven people — and the ingrate whining Canadians passed the baton to their fellow ingrate whiners across the Atlantic. As the Daily Mail in London reported, “High Fliers: Prince William and his wife Kate spend an incredible £52,000 on the one-way flight from LA to London for themselves and their seven-strong entourage.” Incredible! For £52,000, you couldn’t take the president from Washington to a state visit to an ice-cream parlor in a Maryland suburb. Obama flew Air Force One from Washington to Williamsburg, Va., requiring a wide-bodied transatlantic jet that holds 500 people to ferry him a distance of a little over 100 miles. And, unlike their British and Canadian counterparts, the American media are entirely at ease with it.
Just for the record, William and Kate actually spent an “incredible” £51,410 — or about $80,000 — for nine business-class tickets on British Airways to Heathrow. At the check-in desk at Los Angeles, BA graciously offered the Duke and Duchess an upgrade to first class. By now you’re probably revolted by this glimpse of disgusting monarchical excess, so, if it’s any consolation, halfway through the flight the cabin’s entertainment consoles failed and, along with other first-class passengers, Their Highnesses were offered a £200 voucher toward the cost of their next flight, which they declined.
By contrast, in a republic governed by “we, the people,” when the president of the United States wishes to watch a film, there are two full-time movie projectionists who live at the White House and are on call round the clock, in case he’s overcome by a sudden urge to watch Esther Williams in Dangerous When Wet (1953) at two in the morning.
Does one of them accompany the first family on Air Force One? If the movie fails halfway across the Pacific, will the president and first lady each be offered a $2 million voucher in compensation?
In his recent book Presidential Perks Gone Royal, Robert Keith Gray, a former Eisenhower staffer, revealed that last year the U.S. presidency cost American taxpayers $1.4 billion. Over the same period, the entire royal family cost British taxpayers about $57 million. There’s nothing “royal” about the current level of “presidential perks”: The Obama family costs taxpayers more than every European royal house put together.
In the American republic, even the dogs cost more. The Queen is a famous corgi lover and has been breeding them since she was a young girl. Now in her late 80s she’s slowing down and only keeps four. The president has one pooch, a photo-op accessory called Bo, who unlike the corgis requires a full-time handler. In contrast to the stingy remuneration offered by the royal household, the presidential dog-walker is one of 226 White House staff earning over $100,000 a year. For many centuries, the King had a courtier whose somewhat intimate duties were reflected in his title: the Groom of the Stool, a position abolished in 1559. Now, after two and a third centuries, the American presidency has evolved to the point that it has a full-time six-figure Groom of the Canine Stool. Will he be accompanying the president on Air Force One to liaise with the Keeper of the Privy Flatscreen over screenings of Lassie?
In 2003, the advance team for President Bush informed Buckingham Palace that he would only be able to stay there if they took out all the windows and replaced them with blast-proof glass. The Queen, keeping a straight face, politely refused, and the president was forced to spend three nights in an insecure palace. Happily, in Hawaii, the flood-the-zone “security” can proceed unimpeded by cheeseparing monarchs who feel the job of head of state entails assuming a modest amount of risk or at least a passing acquaintance with reality. So local residents who will never catch a glimpse of their hermetically sealed-off sultan are expected to put up with walled-off neighborhoods, closed beaches, and residential streets clogged by 40-car motorcades. The Secret Service is installed in luxury hotels, no doubt with their Colombian hookers, and their hookers’ Colombian glaziers, fresh from installing bombproof windows on Bo’s kennel.
The fish rots from the head down, and so do republics. A $1.4-billion president has a defense secretary with a private plane to fly him home every weekend, and a chair of the “White House Council on Women and Girls” with her own Secret Service detail, and all of them ever more detached from the rhythms of American life. In the wake of the Cartagena hooker scandal, the Secret Service with predictable obtuseness imposed a new rule prohibiting agents from having “foreign nationals” in their rooms. The salient fact surely wasn’t that they were “foreign” but that they were hookers. Yet now, at the luxury Moana Surfrider resort, Obama staffers passing through the lobby and bumping into minor princesses and arch-duchesses staying in the cheap rooms on the lower floors won’t even be able to ask them up to their federally mandated ocean-view suites for tips on deficit reduction. In the Brokest Nation in History, it would be unreasonable to expect the president to pretend to have a regular all-American family Christmas for less than five million bucks.
As Ben Franklin famously said: “A republic, if you can keep it in the style to which it’s become accustomed.”
Rahiel Tesfamariam’s September 2012 answer to Jill’s question has this as its third paragraph:
“The audacious hope that Obama maintains for America is at its core a matter of faith, and his policies have been rooted in that faith. It’s the belief that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights — rights that no man or government can take away,” as he eloquently said during his speech at the DNC on Thursday.”
Rahiel nowhere says what these inalienable rights are that no man or government may take away. Are they freedoms: freedom of conscience, religion, or speech? The paragraphs which follow suggest that her inalienable rights might be to a “chair at the table for people originally left out” (non-whites, not pre-born babies), a “level economic playing field,” and “affordable, quality health care”–in other words, a standard of living guaranteed by the civil government, an America-sized version of Rome’s bread dole.
One of the only two comments on the article was too harsh but mostly correct. A Scott in Virginia, who chose the icon of a soaring bald eagle, wrote on September 12,
“Rahiel, your Christianity must be much like Obama’s — heretical. Do you believe the Founding Document of the Christian faith, or do you follow Black Liberation Theology — which is based in Marxism — as Obama does (as well as his pastor and mentor of 20+ years)? Jesus said, ‘Not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’ Anyone who belongs to a political party that has in its platform the support of activities specifically condemned in the Bible is NOT a Christian, no matter how much they claim the monicker.
Here’s what I don’t understand: you guys are all really judgmental towards each other. What about Matthew 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own?
What’s the plank, A7x? And are we talking about brothers, or dogs and pigs (Matt. 7:6)? You’ll have to speak more specifically, I think.
Jill,
We need to pray for Obama…it sort of doesn’t matter about the belief of those who voted for him…he needs Jesus.
I don’t know what it is: I don’t know you. That’s a question that you are going to have to answer. I’m just saying, I think that many of the people on this blog have lost site of some basic tenets of the religion you claim to follow so fervently. You’re supposed to love others, even if you don’t agree with everything they do. That’s not what I’m seeing..
A7x, my response can be summed up in this meme:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=158293930987024
Jesus never said not to point out others’ faults and help them correct them. In fact, he commanded us to do so. Take a look at Matthew 18:15-18 some time.
The point is that we need to worry more about our own faults before we point others’ out. Hopefully, each commenter here is doing that. Only each commenter and God knows for sure.
Here is Bill Blankschaen’s November 9 answer to Jill’s question.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/billintheblank/2012/11/election-2012-5-things-i-dont-understand-about-christians-who-voted-for-obama/
“God is in control.” Well, duh.
I’ve heard this refrain reminding of God’s sovereignty countless times now since Election 2012 as a mantra to console evangelical Christians and religious conservatives bemoaning the recent win by Barack Obama. Contrary to what some seem to have concluded from my posts “It’s the End of America as We Know It” or “We Are All Victims Now, Mr. President,” I have never doubted for a moment that God was, is, and will always be in control.
But Scripture also demonstrates, from the Garden of Eden on, that each of us is ultimately responsible to our Creator for our own thoughts, actions, and votes.
The numbers show us that evangelical Christians turned out to vote for Romney at a higher percentage than they did for McCain (unarguably the worst candidate ever nominated at the worst possible time). Pew Research puts support for Romney at 79%, the same as for Bush, a professed born-again evangelical. But that still leaves 20% of self-described born-again evangelicals who voted for Obama.
Among the broader Protestant vote, however, only 57% supported Romney with 42% for Obama. And don’t even get me started on the Catholic vote — which Obama somehow won in spite of his hostility toward the Church. That tally has troubling implications for how Catholics view the church leadership. See the Pew Research report (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx).
But for Protestants, who supposedly place a premium on Scripture as the supreme voice of authority for life, I confess confusion as to how even 20% could find a way to vote for Obama and still remain true to Scripture. I cannot recall a clearer distinction between two candidates in my lifetime on several key issues.
So I share with you 5 things I don’t understand about Christians who voted for Obama. I suspect that likely speak for many others, but I’ll stick with “I” rather than the royal “We” so as to offend as few critics as possible.
5 Things I Don’t Understand about Christians Who Voted for Obama
Life. Obama’s record is one of the most radical in support of abortion. I could understand some thinking Romney might be soft on it, given his late-arriving public opposition. But between the two, one supports the killing of unborn children. The other does not. Again, I’m talking about Christians who supposedly are all about Scripture as the final authority. There can be no neutrality on this issue. You can’t sort of support abortion and sort of not. In the end, something is dead. How do you get around that? By narrowly defining life to after-birth?
Marriage. I know we’re all supposed to pretend the Bible doesn’t say what it actually says. I know we’re all supposed to bow at the temple of tolerance. I’m pretty sure that’s why the angels told Lot to get out of Sodom. Because the city had refused to be tolerant. Not. Obama has stated clearly that he supports redefining marriage in opposition to how God defines it in Scripture. Romney supported preserving a Biblical definition. Any explanation here, especially from the 20%, would be welcome. And yes, I’m also asking the 95% of Protestant Christians whose skin God made darker than mine who supported Obama. If Kingdom comes before race, how does that vote get cast with a clear conscience? I love you, but I don’t get it.
Religious Freedom. The HHS Mandate tramples our religious freedom, and it does so unnecessarily. Too many of us think that we can somehow all hold contradictory viewpoints and still make it all work out. Ideas have consequences. What the HSS mandate shows is that Obama values certain perceived freedoms (reproductive rights) as greater than other God-given freedoms. A vote for Obama was a vote to continue to restrict the freedom to freely worship God. 20%? Help me understand.
Private Property. This concern will sound the least religious to most Christians because we have long embraced the Greek/gnostic thinking that the physical world is inferior to the spiritual, in spite of the fact that the second person of the Godhead will be forever be both spiritual and physical — as will we. God is the ultimate owner of all things. In his sovereignty, he has put His world into our care in general, but into individual hands in particular to steward on His behalf. “You shall not steal” is the clearest affirmation of private property there can be. And yet Obama has expressed that it is the role of government to correct God’s incorrect distribution and spread the wealth around according to another standard. While neither candidate was perfect on this issue, one candidate took a far less Biblical position than the other.
Leadership. Admittedly, this is the vaguest concern of them all. I could likely find others on which Scripture is clearer for most. So I’m not taking some kind of adamant position on this one. But, as someone who has spent a lifetime studying leaders and leadership principles, I just don’t understand it. Biblical leadership principles — that is, all sound leadership principles, for they all find their foundation in Scripture — leave me confused as to why anyone would think him a sound choice. I know, critics are demanding that I reprint every leadership book ever written. I can’t in this limited space. But I’d be curious as to why that 20% thought Obama the better leader, the more Biblical, or even the wiser choice. I see him as very similar to another Biblical leader named Barak from the book of Judges, a leader who lacked the courage, vision, and integrity to lead faithfully. Or as Rehoboam who foolishly sought to crush his opposition and thus created far more conflict for those he led. Many more poor examples come to mind. But I don’t understand how evangelical Christians could see Obama’s leadership model as being Biblical. A little help?
So, yes. God is sovereign. And yes, I will be praying for President Obama. Just as I would be praying, I hope, for the political leader who may one day order the torch to light the sticks heaped around me. But that doesn’t mean I would understand how fellow Christians could have supported it.
Maybe I could hear from someone who is a self-described born-again evangelical who voted for Obama. I would like to understand why. Seriously. I just do not see how that decision is Biblical. But I’d love to hear your perspective.
For far too many Christians of all stripes, God’s revelation in Scripture has become an optional handbook. Kind of like the directions that come with your kids’ toys at Christmas — relevant only if all other options fail. We tend to see it rather like the pirate code from Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean. To paraphrase the infamous Captain Barbossa, ”It’s more like guidelines.”
Maybe that’s it. Guidelines. I’m trying, but I just don’t understand it. Any input?
Andrew, that was my point. I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out the faults of others, but surely Jesus would not approve of the way some of the posters on here are doing so. As you said, hopefully some of those people are taking a long look in the mirror..I doubt it, but one can always hope.
Thanks for your concern, A7x. What do you believe about abortion? And what’s your answer to Jill’s question (the topic for this thread)?
Bill Blankschaen’s Nov. 9 blog article “Election 2012: 5 Things I Don’t Understand about Christians Who Voted for Obama” has 138 comments. I want to preserve one here because it was Tb’s topic here on February 3 at 1:41 am and on February 4 at 2:04 am. I still don’t understand what Tb was saying, and maybe my answer did not make much sense to Tb, but Bill had an excellent answer.
Johhny (Nov. 9): I voted for the Christian. Mormonism is a cult, bro.
Bill Blankschaen: Thanks, bro. Jesus proposed a dillema to the disciples. One servant was given an instruction, said he wouldn’t obey, but then did it anyways. Another servant said he would obey, but then disobeyed. Jesus asked, which one was the better servant? The one who acted in accordance with the wishes of the master. Likewise, I am far less concerned with the words that come out of either candidates mouth than I am with their actions. Which one would have — or future candidates for that matter — acted in a way that would be most in line with Scripture?
Bill Blankschaen: I do not agree with the tenets of Mormonism, but I would prefer an atheist who acts Biblical than a professing Christian who does not. Wouldn’t you? Hypothetical situation, of course.
Mr. Blankschaen wrote another blog article on November 13:
One of many thoughtful responses to my recent post “5 Things I Don’t Understand about Christians Who Voted for Obama” caught my attention. It expressed a thought that I saw reflected in other responses, though not with such clarity. It was this:
“My theology does not determine my politics.” I couldn’t disagree more.
Tell that to the 9/11 hijackers. Tell that to William Wilberforce. Or to Martin Luther King, Jr. Or to Jesus, Paul, David, or countless other Biblical figures.
Let’s say what we mean.
Words have meaning. So let’s start there. Often we seem to disagree about ideas when, in fact, we’re just not clear on our words. Maybe we can find common ground yet.
Theology, as I understand it, means a knowledge of God. In other words, theology is what we believe about God. We could also say that definition includes what we don’t believe about God. What we believe about God necessarily deals with what we believe about the deeper stuff of life — where did we come from, where are we going, why are we here, what defines truth, ethics, relationships, values, etc.
Politics, again as I am defining it, is simply those decisions we make that affect others in the polis or the public sphere. We sometimes refer to it as “public life” to differentiate from things that seem more private in nature. But politics is simply how what we as individuals think about issues that affect others in our society and how we act on those issues. See my post “Why All Christians Should Care about Politics.”
So when I say that my theology most definitely determines my politics I mean that what I believe about the nature of reality, including at the core, what I believe about the Divine, necessarily determines how I act when it comes to issues that affect my neighbor.
Do we want disconnected voters?
I dont see how we could ever want someone to vote otherwise. What would that look like? Someone saying that they strongly believe one thing about the nature of the universe and what is best for their neighbor, yet walking into the voting booth and blindly pulling levers or tapping buttons that have no connection to what they think to be right for themselves and their neighbors? I fail to see how that could be a good thing.
I think that everyone votes based on their theology, that is on what they believe about the nature of God, reality, and the way the universe is supposed to work, because they cannot do otherwise. Nor would we want them to do so.
But then even saying that someone should or should not do anything requires an appeal to an authority higher than ourselves — and we’re right back to where the Divine fits into the nature of truth, what we value as important, and why one option is better than another based on an appeal to some higher standard of good.
My commentator friend — and many self-labeled progressive evangelicals — do, in fact, derive their approach to politics from their theology. We just disagree about what we believe about theology, the nature of God’s revelation to us, and the extent of our fall from that state of holiness in which He created us.
What I believe determines what I do
My politics are determined by what I believe to be true about God, just as, I hope, all of my life is. What I believe about God compels me to stop when I see a driver in distress, or to give generously to help those in need, or to correct my children when they try to poke one another in the eye (or should I be more tolerant there?). And to try to vote to best defend life as being created in the image of God. And, yes, to work to impact culture so that every child will always be wanted and loved.
Judging from comments, I guess I do need to state the obvious: the Kingdom of God does not come in the hearts of people through political force. I know very, very few conservative evangelicals who believe such a thing. But that doesn’t mean our theology can be divorced from our compassion for our neighbors in the public sphere.
That’s not to say that some voting issues are not complex or unclear or that there are any perfect candidates. But I think it would help if we were intellectually honest enough to admit that our theology does, in fact, determine our politics.
At least I hope so.
Jill had asked, “Do you agree no one who worships the God of Abraham could possibly have voted for Obama?”
A corollary is, “Do you agree everyone who worships the God of Abraham voted in the 2012 election, and voted for Romney?”
Franklin Graham: Non-Voting Christians Aided Obama Re-Election
by Steven Ertelt of LifeNews
November 16, 2012
Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, says Christians who didn’t bother to show up at the polls are party to blame for President Barack Obama’s re-election earlier this month.
While the majority of voters who are Christians and faithful Catholics voted for Mitt Romney over the pro-abortion president, millions of Christian voters stayed home and post-election analysis shows a low turnout paved the way for Obama to win another four-year term.
The Reverend Franklin Graham tells The Brody File that one of the lessons of Obama’s re-election is that more Christians in this country need to vote, saying, “if Christians are upset, they need to be upset at themselves.”
“We know that from of the statistics that I’ve heard that the majority of Christians in this country just did not vote for whatever reason. The vast majority of evangelicals did not go to the polls,” he complained.
“God is in control, and if Christians are upset, they need to be upset at themselves,” he added. “We need to do a better job of getting our people- the church to vote. Now, I’m not trying to tell you how to vote, you can vote, but vote, my goodness, and vote for candidates that stand for Biblical values.”
The reality check election: How Romney lost on culture and economics
by Matthew Continetti of HotAir
November 9, 2012
They used Romney’s opposition to Obama’s auto bailout as a metaphor for his concern for the rich over the poor and middle class. They ran ad after ad saying the Ryan plan would cut nursing home care. They portrayed Romney’s tax reform proposal as a giveaway to the wealthy and a tax increase on the middle-class. The accuracy of these charges simply does not matter. What matters is that they were effective. They suppressed turnout and support for Romney among the white working class and preserved Obama’s “Midwest Firewall” of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
Obama won overwhelmingly the fifth of voters who said the most important quality in picking a president is that he “cares about people like me.” The majority of voters who thought the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy broke 71 percent to 26 percent for Obama. A majority of voters said Romney’s policies would generally favor the rich, while a plurality of voters said Obama’s policies generally favor the middle class. A majority of voters said George W. Bush was more to blame for our current economic problems.
Obama pollster Joel Benenson is right when he says, “The contours of the 2012 presidential race were shaped less by the country’s changing demographics than by the underlying attitudes and values of American voters.” The attitudes and values of the Obama coalition, including Hispanics, are much more favorable to a robust and active federal government and safety net. These voters see government support for the poor, middle class, and elderly not as a matter of accounting but of morality. The Romney campaign failed to convey an economic message responsive to these attitudes and values while ceding the ground of social and cultural debate to the left. The result was a drubbing for the GOP and a reality check for conservative pundits (like me).
Jon, I dislike abortion, and waver on whether it is morally reprehensible or not, but firmly believe it should be kept legal. One only needs to see the movie Vera Drake to see why this is so…
And I disagree. I don’t think Romney was much better than Obama in a religious sense. Sure, he claims to hold more conservative-Christian values, but looking at his voting record, one can easily determine this is not necessarily the case. Although personally it is a little hard to answer this question, not being Christian myself.
Thanks for your answer, A7x. I don’t speak of a “religious sense”; life is religion.
As a Christian, I believe to be murder any killing of a human being by another human being, except if the latter represents the civil government and, therefore, God, in the act of war or capital punishment. President Obama not only tolerates abortion and infanticide but advocates them, e.g. through his commitment to Planned Parenthood, his support of embryonic stem cell research, his rescinding of Mexico City Policy, his not wanting one of his daughters “punished” with a baby, his voting record on legislation to protect born-alive abortion victims, and his push for “free” contraceptives. Mr. Obama is rabidly pro-abortion; Mr. Romney is pro-life but pragmatic to a fault. Choosing between the two on the issue of abortion should be a no-brainer for a Christian.
And on most other issues, too, Mr. Romney is far better than President Obama.