Monday, October 22, 2007

Barack Obama (part 2)

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

I began my previous post with the following comments: “The following article is from World magazine which is the only weekly magazine that I read regularly. Because of the work I had been doing for my clients, I have fallen behind (once again) on my reading. I had just finished reading this article the other day. I was going to do material on Mr. Obama and after reading the article decided this was a good time to do just that. The two previous posts—Seven things GOD hates and MURDER on a MASSIVE SCALE—were preludes to this series.

I originally was going to just take sections from the article and comment on them but I decided that some might accuse me of trying to skew my presentation by taking material out of context. Therefore, I have ended up quoting the whole article. I was going to first post the article and then make comments the next post. However, I couldn’t resist making some short comments as I was typing it so (because of the increasing length) I have divided it into two sections.” The first is the previous post.

The following portion of the article is from World magazine, October 6, 2007, page 21. The second portion of the article:

“Obama has said the Bible is not a ‘static text’ and says he ‘must be continually open to new revelations’—and he has acknowledged that those who believe the Bible is inerrant and that it teaches, for example, that abortion is wrong aren’t likely to accept his ‘ground rules for collaboration.’ So as the campaign reaches out to religious voters, the discussion typically steers clear of such controversial subjects. (Is it just me or does that seem somewhat deceptive in nature—I want your vote but I’m not going to discuss positions that you are probably going to disagree with?—my addition) On a recent Saturday morning at a campaign organized ‘faith forum’ in rural South Carolina, the subject didn’t come up at all.

About 20 people gathered in a meeting room at a small hotel in Greenwood, S.C., mostly from black Baptist churches in the area. At least six staffers from Obama’s state campaign met with the pastors and church members to discuss how faith affects politics, and to assure the group of Obama’s commitment to Christianity.

Most of the participants expressed concerns over issues like health care and unemployment in the economically depressed region. An elderly pastor with a strong voice and dark blue suspenders lamented his struggles to afford good health care: ‘Here we live in this big democratic country, and there ain’t no medicine for poor people.’ He spoke of choosing between buying food or prescription medicine. (If he is a working pastor, why isn’t his congregation providing him sufficient support and insurance that he supposedly has to make such a choice? Is it the government’s responsibility to care for its citizens as if they were children who need to be kept dependent upon gratuities? Are we trying to depend upon government largess rather than placing our dependence and faith upon GOD? Accepting “free” government largess which is never really free comes at a price. Perhaps the pastor should reread and apply Jesus’ parable about Lazarus and the rich man [Luke 16: 19-31 (NIV)]. I read nothing in that parable that says Lazarus should go running to the government for help. In fact, I read nothing in the Bible that says Christians should go running to the government for help. Isn’t our help suppose to come from GOD???—my addition) He recounted sometimes asking the pharmacist to fill only half a prescription so that he could afford it.

Campaign staffers told the group about Obama’s plan for health care. The candidate favors a universal health-care proposal similar to those of Democratic opponents Clinton and John Edwards: It requires employers to provide insurance to employees, but also allows individuals to purchase their own insurance from a regulated marketplace of competing health plans.

The plan would also offer incentives for improving preventive care, and provide subsidies for individuals who cannot afford health-care premiums. (Some day soon I hope to write a blog or two about health care.—my addition) Obama says the plan would cost the federal government $50 to $60 billion a year once fully implemented. (As a general rule, these figures should be automatically doubled or tripled as such estimates tend to be grossly low-balled. Also expect the cost to increase significantly year after year.—my addition) Like Clinton and Edwards, he says he’ll pay for the plan by allowing tax cuts to expire for those making over $250,000 a year. (Without actually researching it, I doubt that such a plan will actually come close to paying for the actual increased costs. But then, Democrats tend to be very good at spending money but not real good at having the money to spend.—my addition)

Obama concedes his plan is not substantially different from his opponents’ plans, except for one thing: The Clinton and Edwards plans would make coverage mandatory for all Americans. Obama says he wants to make sure coverage is affordable before it is mandatory. (Then, it will become mandatory and also less affordable? Which comes first the increasing cost or the restrictive provisions?—my addition)

Obama also proposes $80 billion in annual tax relief for lower-income Americans and senior citizens. He proposes eliminating taxes on seniors earnings less than $50,000 a year, a plan that would affect about 22 million elderly people. He says he would pay for the cuts by raising the rates on capital gains and dividends for wealthy investors.

All of that sounds good to Renea Little, who sits at a small table in the hotel conference room, talking about why she volunteered for Obama’s campaign. Little has lived in Greenwood her entire life and is currently unemployed in a region that suffered a severe economic blow with the decline of the U.S. textile industry. She thinks Obama ‘will bring us all hope.’ (Well, not quite everyone, he will bring NO hope to unborn babies who will continue to be MURDERED by their mothers.—my addition)

Little is a member of a nearby Baptist church and says it’s important to know that a candidate believes in God. (Is belief in GOD more important than obedience to GOD’S will?—my addition) She liked what she heard about Obama’s faith during the forum, but when asked if his positions on abortion or homosexuality are troubling to her, Little’s countenance slightly falls. She asks in a lowered voice: ‘Is he for those things?’ (YES, he is!!! Has she stopped working for his campaign? How can anyone claiming to be a Christian support a candidate who supports and promotes the MURDER of unborn babies and sinful homosexual activities??? “… and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” I John 3: 15b [NIV]—my addition)

Obama has consistently talked about reducing the number of abortions (If there is nothing wrong with abortions, why is that necessary???—my addition) and increasing the number of adoptions, but also consistently supported legalized abortion. As an Illinois state senator during 2001 and 2002, he voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill aimed at protecting babies who survive abortions. (His position: if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again???—my addition)

The senator cited concerns over the legislation’s provision for civil and criminal penalties for offending doctors. (Any concern for the MURDERED baby???—my addition) The legislation failed in Illinois, but a similar bill passed on the federal level in 2002.

Earlier this year Obama condemned the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion, saying he feared it ‘will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose.’ (A woman does not have and will never have the right to choose to MURDER her unborn baby. His very words condemn him. Barack Obama received a 100% positive rating by Planned Murderhood in 2006.—my addition) But on the trail he rarely mentions abortion, instead focusing on issues more likely to drive the next election; chiefly, the war in Iraq.

Obama repeatedly reminds voters that he was the only leading Democratic candidate against the war from the beginning. He opposed the war in 2002 while still a state senator in Illinois. After winning a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, Obama initially hesitated about supporting a timetable for withdrawing troops. When Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) called for such a timetable in 2005, Obama resisted. ‘I’m not a military man,’ (and he wants to be Commander in Chief?-my addition) he told the Chicago Tribune. ‘I’m not running the war in Iraq.’

Last summer, Obama voted against a plan to withdraw troops within a year. One year later, as a presidential candidate, Obama has proposed a very specific timetable for withdrawal: Now he has called for withdrawing a brigade a month, with all combat troops withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2008. (I guess from 2005 to today, he has become a military man?—my addition)

Clinton and Edwards are also calling for troop withdrawals, and the three front-runners often compete to see who opposes the war most. As with health insurance and the economy, their plans are much the same. With such similar positions on so many issues so close to the Democratic primaries, Alania Beverly, Obama’s deputy political director in South Carolina, admits the race will ultimately boil down to the character of the man—or woman (ALL the Democratic presidential candidates support the MURDER of unborn babies!!! How are they defining character???—my addition): ‘It’s going to come down to who has the political will to get it done.’”


Post a Comment

<< Home