The man who would bring you Obamunism draped in “hope” for “change” wants the Christian population to trust him with their support for the presidency. Let us ignore the contradiction that would be a Christian supporting Obama and look at the message of the charlatan. His D.C. campaign office (AKA The Washington Post) describes how “Obama Addresses His Faith:”
ST. LOUIS, July 5 — Sen. Barack Obama ended a week’s focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make “faith-based” social service “a moral center of my administration.”
He “ended a week’s focus on values” so he must be relieved to have such unfamiliar subject matter behind him. I’m not saying that I don’t believe Barry has values. I am saying that his values are likely not what he was trying to sell last week… or did he give a speech on Marxism somewhere in there? Perhaps he did make a veiled reference to his plans for Obamunism in St. Louis:
He suggested that he would apply the lessons of his faith to the problems he would face if he became president. “The challenges we face today — war and poverty, joblessness and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools — are not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan,” he said. “They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so the values we believe in — empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors — these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and in our laws.”
The message I receive is that the working people will be required to pay more in taxes to enable us to exercise “empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors.” Redistribution of wealth is the only way to prove that we are not a nation of “societal indifference and individual callousness.” His type of libiot ideology is largely to blame for the problems he mentions so how insulting is it to the intelligence of his audience that he expects them to believe that the solution can be found in the cause?
How dare he mention joblessness when his party seeks to stifle manufacturing either in the name of the environment or big labor unions? How dare he mention homelessness when his party seemingly has declared war on the productive? Or am I missing how the homelessness problem might be related to joblessness? “Violent streets and crumbling schools,” is this man insane? The left has worked for years to degrade society. They have glorified immorality and fatherless homes. they have made schools shift the focus from education to diversity and important subjects such as trans-gender-sex-education.
The vile purveyor of Obamunism will not admit that he and his ideology support the degradation of society and the ills he laments. He cannot admit that he needs unwed mothers raising children without fathers. He cannot admit that he needs children to receive poor educations and grow into less than productive citizens. The more people that rely on social programs and entitlements, the more people the Obamunists can control. He cannot admit that he needs dependents of the government so that he can justify the confiscation of the productive sector’s labor.
I get the sense that the most genuine Obama moment of the campaign occurred at a gathering with San Francisco elites when Barry didn’t know he was being recorded. Christian voters, Barry wants your support so please be so kind as to ignore what is likely the most honest quote you’ll get from the dope of hope. From The Hill:
Obama told guests at a private event in San Francisco that he was having trouble attracting support in rural Pennsylvania because people living there had become “bitter” over their economic circumstances and as a result “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
At least he didn’t come out and say “hillbillies” because that would just be tacky! Wait! He chose his words carelessly… and… and they weren’t the words he’s known for twenty years so “bitter” and “cling” have joined Rev. Wright, Wesley Clark, and Bill Ayers in the pile of items from which to distance himself.
Back to the article by his campaign (or Washington Post if you want to be picky.) He has apparently thrown Christians a bone by indicating that there might be an excuse that might not be good enough for slaughtering an unborn child:
Last week, Obama expressly came out against using “mental distress” as a justification for late-term abortions, a position widely seen as the latest in a string of moves toward the political center but one aimed specifically at Christian conservatives.
Oh, well in that case, every Christian should see it Barry as the pro-life candidate! Not so fast though, he still thinks abortion at any stage is acceptable as long as it isn’t a result of “feeling blue”:
“Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family,” he said Saturday. “And I’ve been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.
“It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases,” he continued. But “it’s not just a matter of feeling blue.”
On a personal note, I believe that Obama’s pro-abortion activism would disqualify him from receiving a single Christian vote. What he did in the Illinois Senate to kill common sense legislation to protect babies that were born alive (botched abortions) might disqualify him from having a soul. From Jill Staneck:
On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.
We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.
My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”
Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”
There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.
With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.
Christians who oppose abortion are apparently supposed to be so caught up in “change” that we will accept the notion of not allowing abortions to a mother just because she’s “feeling blue” as a reasonable compromise on the issue. (Of course, in my opinion the life of an innocent child is not something open to compromise, but hey I’m not an enlightened elitist.) Christians’ intelligence and character are being insulted by Obama’s faith based pandering. Not only are we dumb enough to believe what this snake oil salesman is saying, we are greedy! We would not be charitable and giving; therefore, we need Obamunism and its wealth redistribution plan to care for the needy.
I sure am glad that American Christians have the man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years (when not campaigning for something) and never heard the controversial parts of the sermons, to lecture us regarding faith!
