The Green Card ain’t no Valentine

This was supposed to be another boring night with nothing to do. The girls aka Tab, Kerri, and Sarah Beth were going to come by the apartment to watch some cheesy chick flick. I didn’t know about this till I get a text from Sarah Beth saying that they were over there while I was buying soap at Walmart. But anyways, back to the story:

The movie was typical chick flick, guy meets girl, girl marries guy so he can get green card, ie. french guy that is. They hate each other, but everybody loves him. He cooks, cleans, and writes music. This is the dream guy for every girl who watches chick flicks. The girls are so into this movie. The awws, and the “I wish i could find a guy to do that for me’ moments were all over this thing according to Bradley my roommate who is actually the main character in the story and had to tell me this after the fact to add more to the moment that I am currently setting up. Poor Bradley is suffering through this and I know every guy suffers through cheesy chick flicks. He takes it like a champ. I tip my cap to this guy, I would have left the room long ago. I would have talked under such torture.

Back to the movie, (I walk in about this part) They are taking some test that immigration is making them take some kind of test so they can see if they are really in love and all that jazz. But the guy makes it so obvious that he studied for the test. He failed the test so to speak.

Sometime in between here and where I’m going, it’s typical chick flick, they are falling in love. They are really in love and they meet and hug and the girls are waiting for the kiss and all that jazz. They are talking and all and here come the immigration guys. Watching them smooch all over themselves and they are just emotionless, oblivious to the climax that is oh so obvious to the female spectators. One of them commented “Can’t they see how much they love each other?” To which I responded, “Yup but politics and policy prevail.” He turns, she follows, “I write everyday”, says the guy. More tears…. more kissing… guy gets in the car and they drive away. “This CAN’T be the end!” exclaims Tabitha… then the dreaded four letter word shines across the screen…

CAST….

as the credits roll, me and Bradley look at each other hoping that the other just caught the glorious moment that just transpired. The look in his eyes was evident as we burst into cheers of jubilation and laughter as we roll on the floor in absolute hilarity. We just witnessed every single chick flick dream go up in smoke. The total desecration of what a chick flick should be had transpired before our eyes. Bradley and I could hardly keep ourselves together to explain ourselves and this glorious moment to our bewildered female onlookers. As much as we tried to explain this to them, they did not understand nor comprehend the moment. This was a victory for the guys. At least for us who have endured chick flick after chick flick in the name of pleasing the girls. All the things that guys have to fake was rewarded for a moment of genuine victory for every guy. Green Card was for me a reward. That not everything happens the typical way and that someone whether they knew it or not, if it wasn’t the producer then I will credit God for this moment but someone out there knew what guys wanted to happen in a chick flick and someone was generous enough to give it to us. Thank you whoever you are!

A Baseball Historian’s take on the Steroid Era

I’ve been a baseball fan ever since I was 8. I have been a student of the history of the game since I was 14. I became very good at memorizing every single world series winner since the Fall Classic was inaugurated in 1903. I’m the kind of guy that loves the history of the game. I love the game. If I could be alive in a place in history it would be in the 1950s, the golden age of baseball. From New York where Willie, Mickey, and the Duke reigned supreme to Philidelphia where Robin Roberts and Richie Ashburn were diamonds in a tar pit, to Milwaukee where Warren Spahn, Hank Aaron, and company put up a title in 1957 and choked it up in 58, to St. Louis where Stan the Man was still riding the peak of a stellar career. I could go on and on and on about that era.

But sadly in our day and time. Baseball has lost it’s purity. It has been tainted by steroids. While the past cannot be undone and players have been very vauge regarding their involvement in it. The whole thing stinks. If the sport isn’t already tainted by the fact that the players took steroids, it’s been further tainted by the questionable character of the players because of their dodging of the questions by the press. It makes me sick to see the reality of some of the greatest role models in sports fail in the simplest test of human character. It’s a shame to see that great players such as Mark McGwire, who was the fastest player to 500 home runs, Barry Bonds who (whether you like it or not) owns the career homerun record, Rafael Palmeiro who is one of very few players to have both 500 home runs and 3,000 and now it looks like Alex Rodriguez who is the youngest member of the 500 home run fraternity will more than likely never see their plaques in Cooperstown where folks with those kind of numbers are bound. It’s really sad for our sport. First it was the money and strikes and labor issues, now it’s doping. The reality is that baseball, for all it’s mystery and glory in the past is going through it’s biggest crisis since the 1919 Black Sox scandal. The scandals the past in my opinion pale in comparison comparing to the stain of steroids.

Now here’s my solution to the whole problem. Bud Selig, get your head out of the sand, take responsibility for something that you should have dealt with ever since you became commissioner of baseball. Admit that the testing increases and penalty increases you have implemented now should have been implemented 5 years before Mark McGwire shattered the single season home run record. I’m not saying it was all your fault. But it happened on your watch. You are to blame for this. You were in charge, You had the power and yet you stood by and did nothing until the media blew the whistle on you. You were perfectly content to let steroids fly under the radar as long as no one noticed and now that it is you are so quick to say you are not to blame. That was a bad leadership move Selig. Very bad. Bud Selig is the key to unlock the door for great healing in this game. It may cost you your reputation, but, I believe it’s a necessary move to take responsibility for what went down on YOUR watch. It’s the responsibility of every leader whether you did something or not. It’s still your job and your duty to the game you love so much.

Now for my Hall of Fame solution. I could care less if these guys got in or not. Character was never an issue before. Example, Ty Cobb, the meanest and dirtiest player who ever played the game was also a racist, but the fact that there are some records of his that even to this day will never be touched is a testament to his great game. But on the other hand there was no preformance enhancing substances (or PES because I like acronymns). Even if they do get in the stain of the steroids era will forever be on them and the public. The only way that I think they will ever find their way in is if they own up to their responsibility and just tell the truth about the steroids. I don’t want books. I hate books about this thing. Pete Rose burned me on books about controversial subjects. But if not, the Hall still has to acknowledge the affects of steroids on the game and make a section for it.  If I were a voter there’s no way on God’s green earth I would ever put any of their names on my ballot for the simple case that they didn’t own up to their mistakes. These are role models, but they’re human. But humans make mistakes. When humans make mistakes they have to claim responsibility for them. I mean this is an opportunity to really clean up your image in the media who want to skewer you. This is an opportunity for you to redeem yourself in the eyes of the young ones like  I was during that time who held you guys in such high esteem. For God’s sake take it. I would rather put someone in the Hall of Fame who would really and truly own up to what he knew he was doing to himself apologize for damaging the integrity of the game and commit himself to preventing this kind of stuff in the game. Now in this time in baseball, character means so much more than numbers.

As far as the media is concerned. They are like me. We want answers. Right now we aren’t getting them. But, I have this to say, there is hope for baseball. There are those who have not done so. We have the Ken Griffey Jr.s and Cal Ripkens and Tony Gwynns who have done extraordinary and are or will be first ballot HOFers and we should honor them. While the stink of steroids has forever marked baseball. There is still some good in it. I for one will cling to that good with everything within me.

The Hypocrisy of America

Florida Abortionist Held Accountable—Stripped of Medical License in Hialeah Baby Murder Case

Troy Newman (February 9, 2009)

“We are very grateful to the Florida Medical Board for stripping Renelique of his medical license. His incompetence led to the brutal death of an innocent baby born alive, and we are grateful that he will not be afforded the opportunity of hurting anyone else…”

(Tampa, Florida)—On Friday morning, the Florida Board of Medicine revoked the medical license of Pierre Renelique, a Florida abortionist who failed to show up for a scheduled late-term abortion at a Hialeah clinic in July, 2006. As a result, unlicensed workers delivered a live 23-week old baby girl, shoved the struggling baby into trash bag, and stashed her body on the roof.

The Board found Renelique guilty of medical malpractice and delegating responsibility to unlicensed personnel.

“We are very grateful to the Florida Medical Board for stripping Renelique of his medical license. His incompetence led to the brutal death of an innocent baby born alive, and we are grateful that he will not be afforded the opportunity of hurting anyone else,” said Operation Rescue Troy Newman. “Justice was delayed but justice has been at least partially served. We will continue to work to hold the abortion industry accountable until women and babies are safe from these incompetent, predatory abortionists.”

Police, working on an informant’s tip, were able to recover the little girl’s body. An autopsy determined that she had air in her lungs and had therefore been born alive. A second evaluation of the autopsy determined that actions taken by unlicensed abortion worker Belkis Gonzalez caused her death.

The baby, Shanice Denise Osbourne, was finally given a proper burial in October, 2008, and just last week a civil suit was filed against Renelique, Gonzalez, and others on behalf of Shanice.

Criminal charges have yet to be filed, but a spokesperson for the state attorney’s office told reporters that a decision on criminal charges is expected soon.

“This was the first step in finally holding Shanice’s killers accountable for her murder. We look forward to seeing criminal charges filed very soon,” said Newman. Operation Rescue has been encouraging calls to the prosecutor David Waksman, who had delayed pressing charges for over two years.

“This is an open and shut case, as shown by the Medical Boards actions today. There is no more reason for delay. Causing the death of someone, even if they are terminal, is still murder in anyone’s book,” said Newman.

Source: Christian Newswire, Operation Rescue
Now here’s my analogy of the argument: If that baby would have been ‘terminated’ 3 minutes  before, we would have no story it would have been just routine.  We fail to realize that there is really no difference in sticking a knife in a woman’s womb and killing the baby inside of her and waiting outside with a knife in your hand ready to kill whatever comes out.

Oh well… to quote the ever famous Ebeneezer Scrooge, “If they are to die, then let them die, and thus decrease the surplus population.” That’s the mindset of those behind abortion in that it helps those who are poor not have to raise a child that they cannot afford. Every argument I hear for abortion begins with the words, “If I….” or, “Well, I….” or “What if…”. It’s selfish and wrong. No human being should have the right to decide whether another human being should have the right to live based on THEIR convience. Go tell a 10 year old with Down’s Syndrome that he should have been aborted as a child because that’s supposedly a valid excuse for many who abort their child. Has a parent ever told a child, I shouldn’t have let you live, I can’t afford you. Pathetic excuses supposedly justify our rights to kill our children.

Abortion is little more than legalized infanticide. The doctor will be charged with infantcide on one count, instead of the hundreds maybe thousands of counts which he can legally be charged for. What should the mother be so upset about, she was content to kill it while it was inside of her, what’s the difference to her if the baby is suffocating in a plastic bag on top of the roof of an abortion clinic. That’s humane when you consider the brutality of the procedures used to kill a baby inside the womb of a woman.

So all you pro choice people out there who were so outraged at this incident. I have only one word for you. No wait two: YOU HYPOCRITES!!!

Friendship with Jesus: The End Times Key

One of the questions I hear most often concerning understanding the Book of Revelation and the End Times is, “How can anyone understand this?” I know this because I wondered the same thing when I became a Christian. I read the Left Behind books and was so taken in by the events that unfolded and seeing God work in mighty ways and seeing him protect the righteous and vindicating them that I put down the series kinda bummed out in the end. I wondered why if the church was going to be vindicated and protected in the eyes of the wicked were we going to be taken out? I mean everything that we have waited to see is happening right before our eyes!

When I started studying Mike Bickle and the Bridal Paradigm I was amazed. Because I have never found something this awesome and so totally biblical. I was revolutionary to me. It also was my first argument against a Pre Tribulation Rapture in the sense that Jesus wants a pure and spotless bride and the best way to purify something is through fire. God will use the Antichrist and Satan’s powerless rage to purify the church and aid the release of signs and wonders through the hands of his bride. Persecution always brings revival or vice versa. It always brings to people the severity of the decision to follow Christ to a completely different level. Making a decision for Christ is truly making a decision against your comfort and your life. You could die for this, but it’s too real to deny. Eternity becomes a issue on your heart and you are forced to know this man Jesus and partner with him not only in the signs and wonders and the greater works (John 14:12) but you are almost automatically thrust into partnering with him in the fellowship of his sufferings (Phillippians 3:10). It’s not what we are so common to see here in the west where to know Christ means health and wealth and comfort and a free ticket out of here when things get ugly. That’s a mindset I see NOWHERE in the Scriptures. I mean NO-WHERE.

So with that mindset, the next question comes, “If I’m going to be here during the tribulation, How do I prepare?” I mean what do you do? Do you stockpile canned goods and ammo and form a resistance against the Antichrist? Do we start banding together in the mountains and start going back to the Jewish roots of our faith and sacrificing bulls?  Do we start remodeling our homes to include underground communities so we won’t be affected by the judgements and to hide from the oppressive government of Antichrist?

The answer to this is a resounding ABSITIVELY POSILUTELY NO!!!! If we read the Bible we find that one, if we really believed what Jesus said about the end times we could understand it. John 15:15 says that I no longer call you servants because a servant does not know what his master is doing, but I have called you friends because everything the Father has told me I am telling you. Most people look at this as a verse of identification and rightfully so. But, this verse has more of an end times reality than most people realize. That everything we need to know about the end times Jesus has told us. Daniel and Revelation in the Bible are meant for us to know in our time and to add to the revelation of Jesus Christ is to place yourself under the judgement in the book (). Everytime someone has a new theology about the end times based on one verse without looking at the whole of scripture is walking dangerous ground simply because the bible is made subject to their theology instead of the other way around. Jesus has told us everything we need to know without any outside refrence. If the earth hasn’t come to an end and we aren’t ruling and reigning with Jesus on the earth, that means that there is still unfulfilled eschatological prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. If we truly knew God as a God that doesn’t lie or repent we would see that many of the things that were prophesied about Jerusalem in the Old Testament have yet to happen to her which should be a clear indicator that it hasn’t come yet.

What’s the best way on how to take God at his word? What’s the best way to know his heart concerning what he will allow Antichrist to do to Jerusalem for 42 months? What’s the best way to know what the Father is doing in the end times? You guessed it… FRIENDSHIP. Intimacy with Jesus is the only way that we as a church will make it in the end times. Not only do friends know what the Father is doing, but the Father trust his friends to testify of him in truth, and to testify of that truth will be the power of the word made manifest in signs and wonders. Jesus will have a pure and spotless bride at the end of the age, not behind him, but beside him. Working with him, going where he goes, and doing what he is doing completely in love with him and desiring what he desires.

Jesus gives the summary of the end times in Matthew 24, and he continues his talk in Matthew 25 with his parable of the ten virgins. 5 were wise and 5 were foolish. They all had lamps (which symbolizes ministry) but 5 had oil (which symbolizes intimacy) and 5 did not. People will have their ministries, they will be working for God and doing the works of the kingdom. But that will not preserve them when the Bridegroom comes. Preparation for the end times will not be in what can visibly be done, but how well you know the man sending the judgements. Intimacy with Jesus is the key to preparing for the end times. For when the Bridegroom comes, only those with oil will be ready to meet him. Those without will try to buy and not have the time to do it. Their offense with Jesus and what he’s doing will prevent them from doing so. Go buy oil while there’s time. For when the rain starts falling it’s too late. Antichrist and the Beast and the Harlot Babylon will make themselves known in due time, the important thing is to buy oil, get to know Jesus, it’s the only thing that will keep you from offense and it’s the only thing that will keep you when you are faced with the choice of having to suffer and die for your faith in him.

The Preposterous Premise of Gay Marriage by Frank Turek

The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage

Filed under Law & Politics on December 10th, 2008 by Frank Turek

Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com,  used with permission.  Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist.  Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org
After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.”  Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false.  The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights!

We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.

Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.

That’s a preposterous premise!  It would mean that men born with a desire for many women (i.e. most men) are having their rights violated because marriage laws provide no means for polygamy.  Likewise, it would mean that people desiring to marry their close relatives don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals could object because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman!

If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers?  The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws (see Born Gay or a Gay Basher: No Excuse).

Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant.  We enact all kinds of laws that conflict with people’s desires.  In fact, that’s why we need them!  We wouldn’t need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

So there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.”  And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals.  What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the law should prohibit, permit or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law.

We already permit homosexuals to pledge themselves to one another “till death do them part.” They can privately commit themselves to one another in every state, and in California domestic partnerships give them all the benefits of marriage. But that’s not enough for homosexual activists. They want homosexuality to be promoted and endorsed by getting the government to call it “marriage.” That way they can get the social approval they want and use the law as a club to beat homosexual values into our school children, businesses, and charities.

Sorry, but there is no “right” to have any sexual relationship officially called “marriage” and have it granted benefits by the state.  We have government-backed natural marriage because it benefits the country greatly, especially children, and because we voted for it!

Gay complaints of “discrimination” are bogus as well. Marriage laws do not discriminate against persons, they discriminate against behavior. That’s true of most laws. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons.  And the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islam on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, adulterers, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.

The nonsensical comparisons to interracial marriage don’t work either. Race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. There is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because men and women are designed for one another and can procreate regardless of their racial background. But same-sex marriages can’t procreate or provide a mom and a dad to kids.  No law can change that or alleviate the documented health problems that result from same-sex couplings. So our marriage laws should be color blind but not gender blind.

Ironically, it’s not conservatives but homosexual activists who are acting like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. That’s exactly what racists were trying to do to prevent interracial marriage. Racists wanted the state to define marriage as only between same-race couples, instead of having the state recognize what marriage already was—the union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial background. While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they can’t alter the laws of nature that helped lead to the recognition of legal marriage in the first place.

The bottom line is that we’re not discriminating against anyone with our current marriage laws.  Like most laws, we’re only discriminating for or against behavior that is good or bad for our country. So this debate really has nothing to do with equal rights, discrimination, hate or bigotry, but whether or not same-sex marriage would be good or bad for our country.  As I’ve shown in Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad, the evidence clearly shows same-sex marriage would be detrimental to everyone which is why we should oppose it.

If the California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, the people who will be denied equal rights are the majority of Californians who voted for it.  The rights of more than six million voters will be denied by four judges who refuse to acknowledge a false and preposterous premise. Only democracy will be in the closet at that point.

What would you do if you were Israel?

I’ve always been a big supporter of Israel on biblical terms. Saying that I don’t always agree with what they do and I don’t necessarily pray that God would prosper Israel apart from his plan for them.

With that aside, I must address something. Israel has launched an all out attack in the Gaza Strip against terrorist organization Hamas, and the world is clamoring for Israel to stop these attacks. The news organizations are littered with pictures of pitiful Palestinians weeping over damaged homes and property and dead relatives. The French and the American governments have placed pressure on Israel to stop these attacks.

Now, let’s look at things from Israel’s perspective; For about a year and a half I have been reading reports of Palestinian terrorists shooting up the streets of Israel, endless mortar and rocket attacks on civilian targets in Israel. Schools in towns like Ashkelon and Sderot are forced to build missle shelters to protect their children from missles launched by an enemy that will stop at nothing to kill them. What’s worse is they play off Israel’s desire for peace by taking more land, shooting their weapons in civilan targets and hiding and locating these weapons in the middle of their civilans! These people are cold hearted, ruthless, and will stop at nothing till Israel is totally and completely wiped off the map?

Now, while the Bible is very clear on it’s support of Israel and God’s plan for Israel in the End Times, this should be made very clear to those who don’t share the beliefs of Scripture; But what do you say to nations who are defending the terrorists that unashamedly lauch rockets at your civilians? If I were Israel I would send the pictures of my frightened people and their damaged property to the news organizations, I would have alot more than the Palestinians. If I were Israel, I would tell the governments trying to put pressure on me to either help or get out of the way. Since when did the free world sympathize with terrorist organizations anyway? Especially the American government. Frankly, If I were Israel, I would have had enough and thrown the world’s opinion and the UN in the garbage and put Hamas in a bag and beat the bag with a baseball bat a long time ago.

I want to say this to the American government and the French government that is so working for peace in the Middle East, it won’t be until Jesus comes back that there will be peace there. The reality is that Jacob and Esau will forever be enemies, Issac and Ishmael will forever be enemies and only Jesus can heal the wounds that have been centuries old. Either help Israel protect their civilians or get out of their way. It is a war and Hamas started it, put pressure on them to stop their attacks. What if this were happening on your own soil? You would have gone after them and done much worse to them than Israel is doing now.

I don’t necessarily need to use scripture to defend Israel this time. I am just using plain old common sense. Please, use yours.

My Response Concerning Lakeland and recent events

Well… since i was so adamant in supporting Todd Bentley and the Lakland Outpouring and my reluctant approval of what went on there for the sake of the healings, I am obligated to make this ’statement’.

I am no leader or authority in the prophetic movement nor do I claim any responsibility for anything other than my lack of discernment and I seriously doubt that what I have to say is of any importance or will have any lasting effect.

I have 4 friends who went to Lakeland came back ‘on fire’. While God was doing something miraculous in them and in my congregation which I meet with every Sunday, I did not feel right about how they were handling what God was really trying to do with us. There was alot of pride and division around it and it threatened our friendship and our working relationship.

But, I was willing to tolerate it for the sake of the good that was going on even though I was hurt over seeing my friend almost ailenate me because of my concerns. My take on revival has always been to accept the good and overlook the bad for the sake of the good. It is still that way. But, I found myself taking part in that what I didn’t even approve of. In doing that, I sacrificed my discernment.

When the move of God comes, you need to look for fruit. Is this helping you grow in love? Does this focus your eyes on Jesus? Sadly, at Lakeland most were not. Todd was not wise in his scheduling and his marriage is suffering. I’m not saying that God didn’t know what he was doing when he chose Todd to lead the revival at Lakeland. Todd was not wise when he was given what he wanted. Often God gives us what we want if we want it bad enough even though he knows it will hurt us. He did that to Israel when he gave them a king. They wanted a king, he did not and he even warned them what would happen if they did have a king. But, nevertheless they got one and sure enough everything that God said would happen to them under a king happened under Saul’s reign.

I am in no way excusing Todd for his actions. But what happened to him happens to so many people on so much smaller a scale. His focus became more on revival and success than Jesus himself. Me and my friends became more focused on manifestations of the Holy Spirit than Jesus himself. Revival, success, and manifestations are good. But like any blessing such as money and power, they can become a God if we aren’t careful. We must not neglect the reality and the goodness of what happened at Lakeland. Many people got saved and many were healed at Lakeland even though the leader fell into sin.

I call anyone who has sinned ever in their life (Rom. 3:23) to fervently pray for Todd. No matter what he did, no man deserves to go through what he is going through now. He has submitted to restoration under Bill Johnson, Che Ahn, and John Arnott. We need to stand with him especially during this time. I cannot say what i would do if i was in the situation that Todd was in at Lakeland. While I do not approve of his actions at Lakeland, I will stand with Todd and pray for him. Micah 7:18 says that God delights in mercy. I pray that Todd Bentley will be restored and made a trophy of grace and hopefully be used by God in ministry again. I pray for healing and restoration in his life. In Jesus name, Amen.

Obama’s Abortion Extremism

Obama’s Abortion Extremism

by Robert George

Oct 14, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama’s views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.  Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals – who aggressively promote Obama’s candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama’s self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama’s abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ”pro-abortion” rather than ”pro-choice.”

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels,nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers’ money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people – Thomas Jefferson was one – reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn’t think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ”pro-choice”? Of course we would not. It wouldn’t matter to us that they were ”personally opposed” to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ”unnecessary,” or that they wouldn’t dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ”Against slavery? Don’t own one.” We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ”pro-abortion” and being ”pro-choice.” Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ”pro-choice,” then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ”forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.” In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminatedin utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama’s extremism. He has promised that ”the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ”fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ”a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons.” In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ‘’sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ”pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ”punishment” that she should not endure. He has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ”pro-choice” about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama hasopposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ”pro-choice” rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can’t get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President’s restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents’ decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ”clone and kill” bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this ananti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama’s extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama’s injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! ”pro-choice”-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood’s own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ”abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.” In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that ”abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.” No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies – so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let’s suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama’s proposalswould reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama’s America is one in which being human just isn’t enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama’s America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ”that question is above my pay grade.” It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator’s pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy – and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

I’m confused… is it McCain/Palin or Palin/McCain….

At first I will admit I was not wanting John McCain to be the Republican nominee… I wanted Mike Huckabee. The truth is I wanted a pro life candidate. One who valued a human life more than politics. One who would fight to see Roe v. Wade overturned and would end this cycle of death in our nation. When McCain won the nomination, I despaired inside. I was seeing Obama and McCain running for President. I knew I sure as shooting would not vote for Obama. I was in limbo between voting for McCain or not voting at all. I was not sure where McCain stood on the issue of abortion in America.

If I had any hope in this election, it would be McCain’s choice of a running mate. It would give me clarity on McCain’s stance. I heard all of the rumors of running mates and some seemed more logical than most. I was wondering if he would choose Huckabee to be his running mate. I knew it was a slim chance he would.

Then, lo and behold. This nobody comes out of nowhere. Sarah Palin of all the people on the earth. Of all the high profile governors in this great nation. This bombshell who the nation knows so little of comes flying out of nowhere. I was wondering if McCain had fallen off his rocker a bit. I was seriously questioning his sanity. But, one night, I was visiting with my friends and they were watching the RNC. It was the moment of truth for Sarah Palin. Rudy Guiliani did a great job in introducing her and talking her up. But when she was announced, my jaw dropped to the floor. She was smokin hot! I mean did McCain pick her for her looks or what? That was the first thing I noticed about her. I had heard some things about her that made me like her. But when she finished her speech that night, I LOVED her. She was a dream come true for a pro life, pro family, pro God, and pro America guy such as myself.

I have always admired Republicans because they are always looked at as the underdogs by the liberally biased media. The reality is that most of my values are those that Republicans embrace unapologetically. But, when I saw the crap that the media was trying to put Sarah Palin through I could not help but admire her even more. Check this out, the same media that tried to play off Monica Lewinsky fondling our President in the Oval Office were blasting the Palin family unmercifully for her 17 year old daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock. Not only the audacity of that, but the reality that they will stoop to any low to discredit conservatives in our day. This is something I find funny, because if the same thing happened to a Democrat, they would just laugh and blow it off like it’s nothing. Now, I don’t condone the behavior of her child, but I do support the decision made by the family after the fact. Sarah and Todd encouraged her to keep the baby and to marry the father. That’s something I credit her for.

Not to mention that she has actually led something in her life. Obama is nothing more than a rockstar who’s been pushed by the right people to the right places. He has yet to fulfill a full term in the Senate let alone pursue the White House. He’s nothing more than a political toy, and I wonder who is the power behind the throne. Political wonderboys always have them. He has insane policies and somehow believes he can introduce 80 billion dollars in new spending and not raise taxes. The reality is that no matter who you tax it will always come back to what Sarah Palin calls the Joe Six Pack American. But I have no knowledge of financial matters and can hardly be called an authority on the subject. But, when all is said and done… I have yet to see Obama make any decision of any significance… other than his decision to run for President.

John McCain, on the other hand, has fought for this nation. He was in the pit and the grit. He was a POW in Vietnam and know nothing of surrender. He has said publicly that he would rather lose an election than to lose a war. (But in my opinion, if he loses this election, we will lose Iraq.) Granted, I have not always sided with him, he’s more liberal than you’re average Republican, but he’s the best we got. But where he won my confidence was choosing a small town girl, who took on the big oil and big energy in her state and won. She refused to back down even in the midst of enormous pressure. Sarah Palin, I have found says what she means and means what she says. I believe that it benefits her that she is not a member of the Washington elite and that she wasn’t a part of the primary debacle that engulfed both parties. I believe the Democrats have yet to recover from such a hard fought primary. The Republicans have rallied around McCain and Sarah Palin.

I will be honest, I am voting for John McCain because and only because Sarah Palin is on the ticket. She is a pro life, pro family, pro average American. She’s down to earth, practical, and has alot of common sense. I identify with her more than I do John McCain, Joe Biden, and especially Barack Obama. I see someone who will not compromise her beliefs for the sake of personal gain. That is someone I will vote for. But especially she is one who will fight against abortion. If there was any other reason to vote for Palin, it’s that one hands down.

“MY HOUSE” shall be called a House of Prayer

Ever since I joined the House of Prayer, people have often asked me “Where is this in the Bible?” Where does it say that all we are to do is pray all the time? I have often wondered that myself… Of course you have your verses that many people throw out there… My personal favorite is Isaiah 62 because God has put a heart in me for the nation of Israel. Day and night worship and intercession before his throne is to me the most logical thing that we as a body of Christ can think of doing simply because the God who created the earth put that in the scriptures for one. And you never see God in a hurry to do the things that we as a church are in such a hurry to do. Jesus waited 2 days before going to see Lazarus on his deathbed and by the time he got there Lazarus was dead and buried for 4 days yet wisdom was justified when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Now it didn’t make much sense to the disciples that Jesus waited as long as he did.. but Paul reminds us that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men (1 Corinthians 1:25).

So by that standard in the scriptures, we must conclude that whatever God says goes. No matter how foolish it may sound to us or not. We may not get the whole picture. Our Lord works in mysterious ways does he not? Now, when it comes to the way that we gather and meet as a body; who should have the say so in what goes on? We Charismatics love to ‘let the Holy Spirit lead’ and whatever happens happens hallelujah and amen. What does the scripture say that we’re supposed to do while we’re there? What is God’s house supposed to be known for and hence called? Isaiah 56:7 clearly says that God’s house is to be a House of Prayer for all nations. If something is called by a particular name that should mean that’s what it is known as. For example: What do those Christians do over at that building, they pray… it’s known by all men as a House of Prayer. I wouldn’t go to the House of Blues and not expect music almost all of the time. The same with a House of Prayer. If a House of Prayer isn’t praying more than any other thing then by common logic, it’s not a house of prayer. It’s a house of whatever they do the most. Just as IHOP (pancakes) is known for their pancakes IHOP (prayer) should be known for prayer. Not that it is the only thing they do, but the majority of what goes on there is prayer. Or else it is only pretension that they call themselves that.

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all those who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those who sold doves.
Mat 21:13 And He said to them, It is written, “My house shall be called the house of prayer”; but you have made it a den of thieves.

Jesus made it clear what the context of his house was to be. He made it clear. I want to point out a particular phrase in this passage… shall be called. Meaning if I were to be talking to someone about God’s house all he could say about it is that every time he goes there all he sees is people praying. It’s a house of prayer, that’s more than a sign on a door, it’s an identity, it’s a reputation that you can’t shake off. The world does not understand prayer nor will it. I don’t believe that the church really understands it either. We call ourselves a house of prayer, but does the world know us as that? Sadly, no. To be known as House of Prayer is to embrace death in the sight of the world. To have the reputation of a House of Prayer is not a romantic ideology. The Church today wants the title without the reputation. We are quite content to wear the garments of a priest without actually doing it. We are a culture that is obsessed with title and privilege but little responsibility.

When Jesus was clearing out the temple he cleared out the money changers with violence. Romans believed that a good standing with the gods depended on the precision of the performance of religious rituals. The people in the temple were selling the animals for sacrifice. The Pharisees were sticklers about how things were done they didn’t care about the person’s heart. When Jesus cleared out the temple it was his zeal against compromise. The Jewish religion was trying to make itself relevant to the Romans by emphasizing ritual over that what God values. The people of God have always struggled with the temptation of being relevant to the world around us. Even today.

Now, I want to clear something up here… When I say that a House of Prayer is to be known for the House of Prayer that does not mean that’s all they do. While the International House of Pancakes is known for pancakes and that is the majority of what they serve, it is not the entirety of what they serve. While Waffle House is known for their waffles, that is not the entirety of what they serve. The same thing applies to the House of Prayer. While the majority of our ministry is prayer and ministry to the Lord, that is not the only thing. The need for teaching and outreach to the poor is an essential part of a Christians duty to the world but only out of the place of intimacy and prayer and ministry to the Lord. So while the majority of our ministry is that of prayer, it is not the entirety.

But, one thing is reality. If it’s going to be God’s house, it’s going to be a house where the majority of the ministry is that of prayer. He says in Malachi 1:11

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to its going in, My name shall be great among the nations; and everywhere incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure food offering. For My name shall be great among the nations, says Jehovah of Hosts.

He makes it clear that incense will arise to him day and night in every place. In heaven incense is prayer for example Revelation 5:8:

Rev 5:8 And when He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one having harps and golden vials full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

This is the reality of the end times. That if the name of Jesus is to be associated with something, it will be a place of prayer primarily. Otherwise it is something other than his house. For it will be out of the place of prayer that God will ordain his kingdom on the earth. This is the reality of the church in the end times. We will be a house of prayer or we will not be his house.