Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘liberal’

Barack HUSSEIN Obama On The Bible

Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Did Obama Lie About Born Alive Abortion Infanticide Bill?

Posted by Job on August 21, 2008

Not a supporter of the Sun Myung Moon paper the Washington Times (do not even read it anymore!) but still good to read. Not that his opponent, John McCain, would lift a finger to stop this infanticide either, because even if McCain personally opposes it, his new world order globalist masters wouldn’t let him touch it. 

Did Obama Lie About Born Alive Bill?

By Joel Mowbray

For the first time in this presidential cycle, social issues such as abortion took center stage this past week, courtesy of the candidates’ high-profile, back-to-back interviews at a mega-church last weekend.

Yet the mainstream media only days later is starting to address what might be the biggest story in this frame: Barack Obama – whether knowingly or not – provided false information about a controversial abortion vote he made in the Illinois Senate in 2003.

After his nationally televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday night in Orange County, Calif., Mr. Obama sat down with Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody and went on the attack against pro-life activists, whom he said were “lying” about his vote to kill a bill protecting babies born alive following botched abortions.

At issue is an Illinois bill in 2003 called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that Mr. Obama voted against, which was modeled on federal legislation enacted the previous year declaring that in failed abortions resulting in a live birth, the baby must be given normal medical treatment. This was in response to a gruesome practice whereby abortions involving induced labor were resulting in unintended live births – and those infants were simply being left to die. It had passed the U.S. Senate without any dissent.

Mr. Obama contended that he “would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported,” but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because “that was not the bill that was presented at the state level.” Except that it was.

As it turns out – and as even Mr. Obama’s campaign admitted Monday to the New York Sun – the National Right to Life Committee wasn’t lying; Mr. Obama was. The specific difference cited by Mr. Obama in the CBN interview was that the Illinois bill didn’t contain the federal legislation’s language explicitly stating that it would not “undermine Roe vs. Wade.” (This was not merely off-the-cuff, as the campaign had issued a written statement to CNN in June offering the same rationale.) Not only did the bill contain the exact provision from the federal bill, but Mr. Obama voted in favor of adding it as an amendment. After the state bill was changed to be almost identical to the unanimously passed federal law, Mr. Obama voted against it.

CNN, to its credit, did report on Obama’s Illinois actions before the Democrat’s accusation that his critics were lying. The New York Times first reported on Mr. Obama’s Illinois record two weeks ago – almost 900 words into a 1,400-word piece on page A16. In a page A18 story this Wednesday dedicated solely to the controversy, the Times’ Larry Rohter carries Mr. Obama’s water, stretching to offer excuses for his vote that even Mr. Obama did not suggest until after misstating his own record last weekend.

The highest-profile mainstream-media piece to date ran this Wednesday in The Washington Post, a page A1 article titled, “Candidates’ Abortion Views Not So Simple.” In its reporting, however, The Post seemed to dismiss the significance of Mr. Obama’s opposition to the 2003 Illinois legislation by referring to it as an “obscure law.” The Post further presents as fact the Obama position that the Illinois bill Mr. Obama opposed was solely about “pre-viable” babies. The testimony of former nurse Jill Stanek, who witnessed babies surviving botched abortions at Christ Hospital just outside Chicago, discussed babies past 20 weeks, including into the third trimester – thus not “pre-viable.”

Though understanding the legislative process is not a common strength in political journalists, most of the reporters in question are smart enough to sift through the plentiful documentation of Mr. Obama’s voting history on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois at the Web site of the National Right to Life Committee. Further, they could even read the simple, yet thorough, narrative of National Review’s David Freddoso, who has written two stories spelling out the timeline and Obama’s actions along the way. (Some of the reporting is adapted from his new book, “The Case Against Barack Obama.”) Mr. Obama’s camp has shifted explanations this week, now claiming that the Democrat merely wanted a provision in the bill clarifying that it would not impact existing state laws. Yet as several pro-life activists have noted, Mr. Obama was the chairman of the legislature’s health committee when the bill came up again in 2003 and easily could have offered such an amendment. He didn’t.

Regardless of the reasons for his vote, Mr. Obama cannot say that his critics are lying. He did oppose a bill virtually identical to the one unanimously passed in the U.S. Senate. And now, five years later, he might end up paying a political price for that decision.

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

MIKE HUCKABEE TO WORK FOR WORLD’S BIGGEST PORNOGRAPHER RICK WARREN CRONY RUPERT MURDOCH!

Posted by Job on June 12, 2008

Per the link below, the fellow – who actually defended Jeremiah Wright on MSNBC – has been hired to be a contributor for Fox News. Now Rupert Murdoch is a Council on Foreign Relations guy. So is Rick Warren. When Huckabee was being hammered by the anti – Christians in the right wing media for not knowing anything about foreign policy, HE HIRED A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS TO GET HIM UP TO SPEED ON THAT TOPIC! But hey, it is just me being a conspiracy – monger I guess. All of these things are just coincidences. 

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25131506

To learn why I call Rupert Murdoch the world’s biggest pornographer and Rick Warren his pastor, see here: 

Rick Warren Is “Pastor” To Porn King Rupert Murdoch!

Posted in Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Barack HUSSEIN Obama America’s First Homosexual President? Part 2

Posted by Job on March 3, 2008

You know it’s an odd thing when I write a column and leftists knee jerk about it all day until they’ve knocked themselves out from hitting their chins so many times over again.

Yesterday I penned, what I found to be a very logical missive about Obama’s street-cred with homosexual activists and how he could be similar to the homosexual activist movement to what Bill Clinton was to big-government-dependency blacks were in the 1990’s… the FIRST! (Side note – free-market blacks never accepted Billy Jeff as the first black President…)

But stating such observations plainly homosexuals were coming out all over the place feigning indignation that I would have the audacity (good Barack word) to state something that to me is so readily evident.

So just to see how the reaction was continuing I News-Googled, “Obama, gay, homosexual” this morning… and guess what? “THE GAYS” were saying it too… HA!

So for all the knee-jerks that went ten rounds with themselves in hysteria over my column yesterday… what say you now?

Read the entire column: click here.

Posted in Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, gay rights, homosexuality, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Barack HUSSEIN Obama America’s First Homosexual President? Part 1

Posted by Job on March 3, 2008

Townhall.com::Obama: America’s first Gay President?::By Kevin McCullough

If William Jefferson Clinton was America’s first “black” president, could
it be that Barack Obama is positioning himself to be the nation’s first
“gay” president?His supporters have argued vehemently for months that Barack
Obama does not represent the interest of the radical homosexual
activists. Chicago “South-side” radio talk show hosts declare with
confidence that Senator Obama has said he would oppose the redefining
of marriage to include unions that only the imagination could cook up.
Obama has blindsided black clergy across America with the con-game that
they should not worry about his views on homosexuality.


He has uttered a “Praise the Lord” at the side of Gospel uber-star Rev.
Donnie McClurkin, who himself was sexually abused by a homosexual and
thusly forced to struggle with the issue in his own life at times.
Obama has gone from church rally to church rally making vague
references to God’s power, and God’s purposes – while never defining
one ounce of what any of it means.

Yet as someone who has followed his career since long before he
was a national stage player, I have warned that his aggressive support
for the radical homosexual activist agenda in America is a part of the
overall picture of who he is.

In this way he may be more “gay” than Clinton was “black” – and by a wide margin at that.

For all the shell game that Obama was able to juggle in the run for
President to date on the issue of his real, underlying views on the
radical homosexual agenda – this week he removed all doubts.

In an alarmingly pointed written statement Obama signed his
named to the personal promise of greater advance against the
institution of marriage of any candidate to ever run for the highest
office.

Pointedly so he gave his full pledge to overturn, or repeal, the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

“I also believe that the federal government should not stand in
the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue
equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic
partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator
Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S.
Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe
we should get rid of that statute altogether.”

This act was signed by the last liberal President in office
William Jefferson Clinton. In pledging to do so Barack Obama has now
staked out turf that threatens the viability of the next generation of
children that could subject them to an operative norm that would
contribute to the de-constructing of families as to however one could
imagine in one state – and then forcing recognition of that sexual
union by its neighboring state regardless of what the citizens of that
state say.

In pledging to overturn DOMA Obama seeks to remove state’s
rights, violate the principles of federalism, violate a major tenant of
all traditional religious systems observed in America, and subject
children to a quite non-healthy home-life. Studies of which have
confirmed would have a detrimental effect on said children’s
scholastic, emotional, intellectual and physical health.

Yet the overturning of DOMA is merely the beginning of Obama’s radical homosexual activist agenda.

For months supporters of Obama have written to me asking for evidence
that he would do anything to advance or at the very least not stand in
the way of the redefining of marriage. See at least Ted Kennedy and
John McCain both made the argument in not supporting the Constitutional
Amendment to Protect Marriage that it was unnecessary on the grounds
that DOMA would prevent the cancerous spread of Massachusetts’ Judicial
Activism from roaming state to state. But for Obama this is merely too
little activism, and it proceeds far too slowly for his own desire.

Thus in his written statement this week he argues publicly that
states should be allowed to redefine the marriage laws in their state
regardless of what research norms, the will of the people, or the
common sense of healthy tradition have to say about it.

In doing so Obama displays a reckless commitment to play games
with the future sexual formation of families and puts himself so firmly
planted in the camp of anti-biblical views of truth, sex, and family
that we have never seen its comparison in all years previous.

Make no mistake, committed Obama supporters share his
uber-libertine leanings to homosexual behavior, and want to encourage
more relaxation of traditional moral sexual barriers in society. And
with academics like Dr. Judith Levine arguing in her book, and endorsed
by Clinton Surgeon General Joyclin Elders, arguing that sex between
adults and children is not harmful to the child – one can easily
imagine what such relaxation of rules would lead to.

I was the first pundit in America to predict that Barack Obama
would be president in 2009. A prediction, I admitted at the time,
pained me greatly. Nothing that has happened in the nomination process
of either party has caused my five underlying conditions for his
victory to be erased. With John McCain as the GOP nominee it appears my
prediction is perfectly on track.

Yet I will not allow my prediction to come true without
speaking the transparent truth that Obama is not a man of traditional
values, nor is he a friend to families.

He may aspire to be many things.

Hey may also aspire to be labeled America’s first gay president.
He would without question be more deserving than “Clinton as ‘black'”
under even the kindest of comparisons.

Kevin McCullough’s first hardback title “The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking” is now available. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough’s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Posted in Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, gay rights, homosexuality, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Should Churches Be Places Of Public Accommodation?

Posted by Job on October 2, 2007

Former John Edwards campaign worker Amanda Marcotte and the people that run with her hate Jesus Christ and all who love him (see link). Honestly, that should surprise no one. Yet her fellow traveler Lindsay Beyerstein, who turned down Edwards’ request to be yet another Christ – hater working for the campaign of someone who hilariously claims to be of Southern Baptist extraction, visited a church not long ago and reports having a great time (see link)! How can this be? Well, Ms. Beyerstein, committed atheist that she is, was there for a Martin Luther King Day program that of course was nothing more than a leftist political rally.Should people like Beyerstein be barred from entering Christian churches? Of course not! But should Christian churches host secular events and take on other roles that do not advance a Christian purpose? That is the question. You can go to the “events” section of any newspaper and see any number of churches opening their doors to events that have nothing to do with Jesus Christ. I will grant you that you will not find a large numbers of events being hosted that are overtly anti – Christian, and the ones that do host such events are only “churches” in the most nominal sense. And I understand the need to be good neighbors and accommodate groups that need the space and facilities. It is also true that allowing their facilities to be used for such events costs the churches involved pretty much nothing in terms of time and resources.

But is not it ironic that on virtually any day of the week you can find any number of church buildings being used to advance aims that have nothing to do with Christ when so many churches are neglecting to do the things that Jesus Christ actually told us to do? So many of our churches are either pretty much irrelevant to the outside world because other than giving people that are already Christian a place to meet 4 times a month (sometimes less!) the door is closed and the building is empty. The other extreme is that churches are so often used for non – Christian purposes that they basically become part of the background.

So I suppose that it is not so much that we should be barring the door to keep people like Lindsay Beyerstein out. Instead, our churches should always be loving Jesus Christ by keeping His commandments to preach the gospel, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help and advocate for the poor, etc. that folks like that would not be able to stay very long unless they are willing to make a change. And yes, the same should be true of the congregation!

Posted in christian worldliness, Christianity, church worldliness | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: