Tag Archives: Christian Left

Red Letter Christian Socialist Jim Wallis Concurs With Obama’s Attack on Banks

The High Priest of Obamanation and Socialism urges changing the free market for the “common good”.

One of the greatest dangers besides the Marxist in the White House that our culture faces is the Christian Socialist Movement.  Combining Leftist (Progressive) politics with selected parts of the New Testament, Red Letter Christian Sojourners seek to equate Christianity with Socialism – and therefore Christian duty.

Along with attacking Biblical Christian stands against Homosexuality and Abortion, this week Jim Wallis decided to give religious weight to Obama’s plan to nationalize the banks by regulating their size and activities. I’m still trying to find the scriptures where Jesus said Christians should empower the government to order businesses to give charity and to regulate their business to ensure ‘righteousness’.

I’m going to comment on this backwards religious Marxism as prompted by the article.

Liberal Evangelical Christian Jim Wallis Rips Banks; Calls Bonuses ‘Sins of Biblical Proportions’ 

When you breach the sacrosanct wall between church and state, and use religion to promote policy, bad things happen. At least, that’s what the left has been telling us for years.

But Rev. Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine and author of “Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street and Your Street,” sees it differently. Wallis used his interpretation of religion, particularly the Bible, to play the populist card and categorize portions of the American private sector as greedy on MSNBC’s Jan. 21 “Morning Joe.”

“These bank bonuses, I would say, are a sin of Biblical proportions,” Wallis said. “But to pick on the banks alone misses the point. It’s a symptom, I think of a real erosion of societal values because new maxims have taken us over – ‘greed is good,’ ‘it’s all about me and I want it now.'”

Yes, this is true.  Especially if you are a Marxist like Obama or a Christian Socialist like Wallis, who see no problems with being greedy with YOUR business, YOUR property, YOUR money.  It’s all about THEM and they want to tell you what to do with your money NOW.  Greed is good if you can disguise it as government charity.

Wallis suggested our society adopt a values system that sounded more like socialism than the rugged individualism that has made American great. He proposed using the economic downturn to implement these “values.”

Wallis is a known Socialist who has been busy creating “The Christian Left“, an amalgamation of Socialism and Community Leftist Activism coupled with their insistence that Jesus was a Socialist due the red letters He spoke.   They use the Sermon on the Mount as a proof text to justify their assertion that being a good Christian means being a good Socialist. 

“To those, I want to propose some old virtues like ‘enough is enough,’ ‘we’re in this together,’ and I love the Native American notion that you value decisions today by their impact on the seventh generation out,” Wallis said.

Yes, he’s proposing pagan virtues not found in scripture.  I do not find any translation of either the Hebrew, Greek or Chaldee that says “enough is enough” or “We’re in this together and therefore the government should nationalize your business”

“Now that would change things. So, I think we need to use a crisis to recalibrate and to think, if we miss the opportunity, all pain, suffering – my hometown of the Detroit, I was just there to launch a book, launching a book in the worst city in the country but it was the right place before going to New York. We don’t do this, we won’t redeem this crisis. So, let’s use the chance to rethink our values here.”

Hmmmm, “use a crisis to recalibrate what we think”?   Who was it that said “Never let a crisis go to waste”?  Oh yes, Obama’s very own Rahm Emmanuel.  It’s interesting that Wallis is of the mind we should use this crisis to ‘rethink our values’.  Didn’t Obama suggest something similar in his crusade to “change the foundations of the country”?  If you do some digging on their website, you’ll discover what those ‘progressive’ values actually are.  They are not biblical.  They are massaged to appear biblical.

But I’m curious there Mr. Wallis, in the spirit of ‘rethinking our values’ – the profits you are making from this book of yours – I assume you are sending them to Haiti or to someone who needs to keep his house in Detroit being foreclosed on?

From a policy standpoint, Wallis suggested America use these reassessed values to create this so-called “new economy.”

“Well, wealth doesn’t trickle down,” Wallis said. “We’ve learned that. But bad behavior does. And so, I think underneath this economic crisis there is really a values crisis. And how we get a moral compass for a new economy and I’m hearing this from business people, from unemployed workers.”

I do not find Jesus asking His disciples to use their values to create a ‘new economy’.  Make disciples, baptize – yes.  Make a Socialist economy?  No.  In Wallis’ estimation, Capitalism is of the Devil, Socialism is of God.  In his mind, Capitalism and the Free Market are the ‘values crisis’ that needs to be changed.  Socialism is the new ‘moral compass’ in his liturgy.

Wallis related a story about a protest in which he participated in Dec. 2009.

“I was standing on the steps of the Treasury Building with people that were being foreclosed upon and they talked about what happened,” Wallis said. “And they began to cry and I get up as the religious leader and I just got mad. I said, you know, we extended grace to these big banks because we are afraid after meltdown. They’re extending no grace to the people who need it – small businesses need help to do jobs. That’s right.”

I thought Grace was the province of God?  I was not aware that grace is about extending money to people who owe on mortgages they could not afford in the first place.  All Wallis advocates here is irresponsibility and the religious virtue of helping people be irresponsible.

As for the Wall Street bonuses, which banks are contractually obligated to pay and some employees rely upon in lieu of a regular salary – Wallis said to send them to Haiti.

“And these $150 billion, these bonuses, this could erase the budget gap in 50 states. this could provide health insurance for 30 million people. A quarter of it could prevent and postpone foreclosures until 2012. This is a lot of money. I say send the bonuses to Haiti or something like that.”

So, a “Christian virtue” is to have others dictate and tell you what you should do with your own money?  Matthew 20 more than counters this envious and tyrannical mindset, for Jesus Himself says in His parable of those who want to tell the Estate owner what he should do with his money “Am I not permitted to do what I choose with what is mine? Or do you begrudge my generosity? Is your eye evil because I am good?” Matthew 20:15

Wallis channeled his inner-Ellsworth Toohey to bash the market system and called for the change for “the common good.”

Yeah.  Marx, Engels, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Obama all said the same thing.

“We lost, Mike [Barnicle], the notion of the common good,” Wallis said. “The invisible hand of the market let go of the common good. How do you restore a sense of community again? That’s I think the issue before us.”

“Morning Joe” panelist and CNBC “Closing Bell” anchor Maria Bartiromo asked Wallis if the American dream was still achievable.

“The chances of that are less than ever because of how the debt is stacked from the top,” Wallis said. “That kind of opportunity is what we need.”

The “common good” Mr. Wallis?  James 1:27 defines what pure and undefiled religion is.  What you mean by ‘common good’, is not the same thing James or Jesus advocated.

‘Common good” to you is “Communism”.

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The gods of The Liberal Left

The gods of Liberalism

Matt Barber

Modern-day liberals – or “progressives” as they more discreetly prefer – labor under an awkward misconception; namely, that there is anything remotely “progressive” about the fundamental canons of their blind, secular-humanist faith. In fact, today’s liberalism is largely a sanitized retread of an antiquated mythology – one that significantly predates the only truly progressive movement: biblical Christianity.

While visiting the Rivermont Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, Va., a few weeks back, I heard a troubling, albeit thought-provoking, sermon. Pastor John Mabray addressed the ancient Canaanite practice of Baal worship and, though he didn’t reveal it by name, connected the dots to its present-day progeny: liberalism. Baal, the half-bull, half-man god of fertility, was the focal point of pagan idolatry in Semitic Israel until God revealed His monotheistic nature to Judaism’s forebears.

In his sermon, Pastor Mabray illustrated that, although they’ve now assumed a more contemporary flair, the fundamentals of Baal worship remain alive and well today. The principal pillars of Baalism were child sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism (reverence of creation over the Creator).

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of  the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to) the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  – Romans 1: 21-24

Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of “mother earth.”

The natural consequences of such behavior – pregnancy and childbirth – and the associated financial burdens of “unplanned parenthood” were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or – with child sacrifice available on demand – could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to “terminate” the unwanted child.

Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar. The worship of “fertility” has been replaced with worship of “reproductive freedom” or “choice.” Child sacrifice via burnt offering has been updated, ever so slightly, to become child sacrifice by way of abortion. The ritualistic promotion, practice and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality and promiscuity have been carefully whitewashed – yet wholeheartedly embraced – by the cults of radical feminism, militant “gay rights” and “comprehensive sex education.” And, the pantheistic worship of “mother earth” has been substituted – in name only – for radical environmentalism.

But it’s not just self-styled “progressives” or secular humanists who have adopted the fundamental pillars of Baalism. In these postmodern times, we’ve also been graced, regrettably, by the advent of counter-biblical “emergent Christianity” or “quasi-Christianity,” as I prefer to call it.

This is merely liberalism all dolled up and gratuitously stamped “Christian.” It’s a way for left-wing ideologues to have their “religion” cake and eat it too. Under the guise of “social justice,” its adherents often support – or at least rationalize – the same pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and radical environmental policies pushed by the modern-day Baal worshiper.

Though the “Christian left” represent what is arguably a negligible minority within larger Christianity, the liberal media have, nonetheless, embraced their cause and seized upon their popularity among elites as evidence that the so-called “Christian right” (read: biblical Christianity) is losing influence – that Christianity is, somehow, “catching up with the times.”

Because emergent Christianity fails the authenticity test whenever subjected to even the most perfunctory biblical scrutiny, I suspect it will eventually go – for the most part – the way of the pet rock or the Macarena. But this does not absolve leaders within the evangelical community from a duty to call leaders of this counter-biblical revolution on their heresy. It’s not a matter of right versus left; it’s a matter of right versus wrong – of biblical versus non-biblical.

Nonetheless, the aforementioned pillars of postmodern Baalism – abortion, sexual relativism and radical environmentalism – will almost certainly make rapid headway over the next four to eight years, with or without help from the Christian left. The gods of liberalism have a new high priest in Barack Obama, and enjoy many devout followers in the Democratic-controlled Congress, liberal media and halls of academia.

Both Obama’s social agenda and that of the 111th Congress are rife with unfettered pro-abortion, freedom-chilling, pro-homosexual and power-grabbing environmentalist objectives. The same kind of “hope, action and change,” I suppose, that was swallowed up by the Baalist Canaanites of old.

So, today’s liberalism is really just a very old book with a shiny new cover. A philosophy rooted in ancient pagan traditions, of which there is naught to be proud.

There’s “nothing new under the sun,” indeed.

2 Comments

Filed under Chrisitan Viewpoint, Culture War, Politics

Religious Extremism Okay If It Hates America The Democrat Way

Excusing Extremist Marxist Pastors

While I am convinced the Marxist/Socialist Left in this country HATE Christianity and religion with a passion, it is amazing to see the blatant hypocrisy of their support and excuse-making for so-called Christian Pastors like Jeremiah Wright if the gospel preached is one based on America-hatred and Socialism.

I will go on record to state in my opinion, Obama’s “christianity” is as fake and theatrical as his political speeches. Everything is about political expediency to achieve power for this America-hating Socialist – as it is for his former pastor and mentor of the last twenty years.

In the fallout after the new media trumpeted Wright’s Hate America antics in his sermons – all-of-a-sudden, the Left has found religion, and witness the scramble and call to protect the free exercise of religion if the liturgy is America-hating Socialism.

Traditional Christianity can still go to hell as far as the Left is concerned however.

Liberals’ new cause: Religious extremism

Open the pages of a liberal magazine or peruse the liberal blogosphere, and you’re bound to come across denunciations of the religious right, if not religion itself. The “reality-based community,” as self-satisfied liberal bloggers call themselves, was a term created in direct response to the “faith-based community,” what the Bush administration called recipients of money from its Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Given the religious right’s use of “faith” to justify hoaxes such as “intelligent design” and the ruinous attempt to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals, the left had good reason to criticize, and sometimes mock, the absurdities that are the inevitable result of religion mixing with politics.

Yet the left, with its healthy skepticism toward religion, has shown itself to be cynically flexible over the past few weeks in response to the utter insanities emitted from the big mouth of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years. Suddenly, some liberals have discovered a newfound love for extremists who hide behind the cloth to justify their radical views.

The lunatic remarks made by Wright in videotaped sermons released in March — which, lest there be any doubt that these pearls of wisdom were taken “out of context,” Wright reaffirmed at the National Press Club last week — are indefensible, and it is beyond pedantry to quibble over whether a spirited defense of Louis Farrakhan is more or less offensive than blaming abortion doctors and gays for Sept. 11, 2001, as Jerry Falwell infamously did two days after the terrorist attacks.

But in the warped minds of some on the left, uttering such inanities is not only “understandable,” it’s laudable. That is, of course, if the person alleging that the government created AIDS to kill African-Americans is an aggrieved black man lashing out at the rapacious, capitalist and irredeemably racist United States. Wright, you see, is actually a “patriot” for speaking uncomfortable “truths” about his country.

John Nichols is the Washington correspondent for The Nation. Like most of his comrades, he tends to be a vociferous critic of the religious right, regularly denouncing them for all manner of bad deeds. But to Nichols, Wright is not a divisive figure spreading dangerous lies. He is, in fact, “in possession of the balm that has frequently proven to be the cure for what ails America,” that is, “an eyes-wide-open faith in the prospect that this country can and will put aside the sins of the past and forge a future that is as just as it is righteous.” Nichols ended his ode to Wright by comparing the preacher to none other than Thomas Jefferson, a comparison that Wright would likely find insulting, given that he’s accused the author of the Declaration of Independence of pedophilia.

Wright

Indeed, many on the left are trying to outdo one another comparing great historical figures to Wright, whose most proximate antecedent would be a black, religious Lyndon LaRouche. Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell called Wright “Our Jeremiah,” in that he is akin to the “biblical truth tellers who regularly warned the government that divine destruction was imminent if the nation continued to oppress the powerless.” She then decided to insult the very notion of historical memory by comparing Wright to Frederick Douglass. Don Wycliff, former public editor of the Chicago Tribune, was perplexed as to what all the fuss over Wright was about. “I’m trying to figure out what it was that got everybody’s shorts into a twist,” he wrote in Commonweal magazine. (Wycliff’s bewilderment over the reaction to Wright’s lies and hyperbole does not speak well to his skills as an ombudsman.) The double standard some liberals have employed in response to Wright makes one seriously consider their oft-stated preference for
rationality, reason and secularism over superstition and prejudice.

Wright attacks capitalism throughout his sermons, an odd ideological target for a man who reportedly drives a Porsche and whose grateful congregants are building him a $1 million, four-garage home in a predominantly white suburb of Chicago (so much for being “unapologetically black”). He has also praised Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Libya’s Muammar al-Qadhafi. So it’s really no wonder that a huckster such as Wright has emerged as some sort of “reality-based community” folk hero. The political left finds common cause with the religious left and is apparently willing to overlook exactly the sort of racist sectarianism that it would be so quick to condemn were its perpetrator a white conservative.

Last Monday, Wright claimed that criticism directed toward him represents “an attack on the black church.” With this shot across the bow, Wright perpetrated a solipsistic conflation of the mainstream African-American religious tradition (which, despite the protestations of his apologists, he does not represent) with his own bigoted paranoias: anti-Zionism, anti-white racism and the lie (especially dangerous in the black community, where HIV infection is skyrocketing) that the government created the virus to kill African-Americans.

As much as Obama may now try to separate himself from his former preacher, he unwittingly justified Wright’s barnstorming performance with his initial justification that “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” Unfortunately, some in the reality-based community seem to agree.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture War, Media Bias, Politics

The Post Racial “Black Power” Candidate

Gotta love Mark Steyn. In the midst of all the sharp wit – there’s wisdom.

But a new question is going to have to be asked, just how divided by Hate America/Hate Whites theology are we? If a foreign power decided to invade and take us over, whose side are people like Obama and his fellow congregants going to take?

Certainly not ours, and yet America is on the verge of electing this guy to the presidency?

We might as well vote for Osama Bin Laden’s son to the White House, at least we would know from whence his true ideology and allegience springs instead of being buffaloed by Obama’s.

Post ‘Post-Racial Candidate’
Things get out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts on the campaign trail.

By Mark Steyn

‘I’m sure,” said Barack Obama in that sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac, fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, “many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

Well, yes. But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose legions of “spiritual advisers” at the height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps, Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the president presumptive. The Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of the United States — and not as a cure for the common cold that went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright knows the truth. “The government lied,” he told his flock, “about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Does he really believe this? If so, he’s crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish, certainly not for 20 years.

Or is he just saying it? In which case, he’s profoundly wicked. If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity and drug use, you’ll know that it’s within your power to protect yourself from the disease. If you’re told that it’s just whitey’s latest cunning plot to stick it to you, well, hey, it’s out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your behavior.

Before the speech, Slate’s Mickey Kaus advised Senator Obama to give us a Sister Souljah moment: “There are plenty of potential Souljahs still around: Race preferences. Out-of-wedlock births,” he wrote. “But most of all the victim mentality that tells African Americans (in the fashion of Rev. Wright’s most infamous sermons) that the important forces shaping their lives are the evil actions of others, of other races.” Indeed. It makes no difference to white folks when a black pastor inflicts kook genocide theories on his congregation: The victims are those in his audience who make the mistake of believing him. The Reverend Wright has a hugely popular church with over 8,000 members, and Senator Obama assures us that his pastor does good work by “reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDs.” But maybe he wouldn’t have to quite so much “reaching out” to do and maybe there wouldn’t be quite so many black Americans “suffering from HIV/AIDs” if the likes of Wright weren’t peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community.

Nonetheless, last week, Barack Obama told America: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

What is the plain meaning of that sentence? That the paranoid racist ravings of Jeremiah Wright are now part of the established cultural discourse in African-American life and thus must command our respect? Let us take the senator at his word when he says he chanced not to be present on AIDs Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America Sunday, or U.S. of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11 America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service. A conventional pol would have said he was shocked, shocked to discover Afrocentric black liberation theology going on at his church. But Obama did something far more audacious: Instead of distancing himself from his pastor, he attempted to close the gap between Wright and the rest of the country, arguing, in effect, that the guy is not just his crazy uncle but America’s, too.

To do this, he promoted a false equivalence. “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother,” he continued. “A woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.” Well, according to the way he tells it in his book, it was one specific black man on her bus, and he wasn’t merely “passing by.” When the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dumped some of his closest cabinet colleagues to extricate himself from a political crisis, the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe responded: “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his friends for his life.” In Philadelphia, Senator Obama topped that: Greater love hath no man than to lay down his gran’ma for his life. In the days that followed, Obama’s interviewers seemed grateful for the introduction of a less complicated villain: Unlike the Reverend Wright, she doesn’t want God to damn America for being no better than al-Qaeda, but on the other hand she did once express her apprehension about a black man on the bus. It’s surely only a matter of days before Keith Olbermann on MSNBC names her his “Worst Person In The World.” Asked about the sin of racism beating within Gran’ma’s breast, Obama said on TV that “she’s a typical white person.”

Which doesn’t sound like the sort of thing the supposed “post-racial” candidate ought to be saying, but let that pass. How “typically white” is Obama’s grandmother? She is the woman who raised him — that’s to say, she brought up a black grandchild and loved him unconditionally. Burning deep down inside, she may nurse a secret desire to be Simon Legree or Bull Connor, but it doesn’t seem very likely. She does then, in her own flawed way, represent a post-racial America. But what of her equivalent (as Obama’s speech had it)? Is Jeremiah Wright a “typical black person”? One would hope not. A century and a half after the Civil War, two generations after the Civil Rights Act, the Reverend Wright promotes victimization theses more insane than anything promulgated at the height of slavery or the Jim Crow era. You can understand why Obama is so anxious to meet with President Ahmadinejad, a man who denies the last Holocaust even as he plans the next one. Such a summit would be easy listening after the more robust sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

But America is not Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank — for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama’s choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment — to claim that, given America’s history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright’s generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn’t that — what’s the word? — racist? So much for the post-racial candidate.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture War, Politics

Obama Causes IRS Investigation of Church Denomination

obamapulpit.jpg

Incompetency? Gross neglect? Willfull defiance?

As Barrack Hussein Obama is a Christian “Progressive” candidate who fully supports the Separation of Church and State when it applies to Conservatives and Evangelical Christians, is it not interesting to note that the Democrats routinely violate the so-called “separation of church and state” doctrine when convenient for them – but unleash the hounds of hell on their political rivals if a mere mention of God is made by a Conservative candidate?

Then there is the blatant violation of supposed “rules” to prohibit campaigning from a pulpit, but here – as in his brush-off of the Tony Rezko real estate scandal as a “boneheaded mistake”, will the excuse be the same, or will Obama possibly anger his Separation of church and LGBT lobbies by suddenly going to bat for our First Amendment Rights?

Don’t count on it. As with the real estate scandal with Rezko, the mainstream media and the worshipping masses will bury and poo-pooh any legitimate concerns and fallout from another Obama gaffe, but an Open Letter to Barrack Obama from Jeffrey Lord addresses the damage and fallout the United Church of Christ now has to endure out of complete incompetency, or carelessness.

In an age of Jihad terrorism, hair trigger rogue states and nukes once again being armed up and pointed in anger – can we afford such an imbecile as this Obamacile?

An Open Letter to Barack Obama
By Jeffry Lord

Dear Senator Obama:

Our common denomination, the United Church of Christ, has a suddenly serious legal and financial problem with the Internal Revenue Service. You, personally, are the cause of this problem. Candidly? I think you owe it to those of us who are your fellow congregants to help repair the damage that you have done.

As you know, on June 23, 2007, you gave a speech to the United Church of Christ’s General Synod during our church’s 50th anniversary celebration in Hartford, Connecticut. The invitation was extended well before you became a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. You are one of us, and while I disagree with you politically and could not be in Hartford, certainly I initially thought the idea of inviting you to speak was a good one. Contrary to the image our denominational leaders seek to promote, all members of our church are not liberals, and certainly I am not. Yet as a conservative I believe the exchange of ideas is what America is all about.

Everything changed with your formal announcement that you were running for president. Instantly your potential appearance posed a problem for the UCC, as the IRS has quite specific rules regulating the appearance of political candidates campaigning in front of church audiences. The rules are the result of an amendment to the tax code in 1954 by then-Senator from Texas Lyndon B. Johnson, the Democratic leader of the Senate. This law was, per Jill “J.R.” Labbe, the deputy editorial page editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, payback against “two non-profits in Texas that were actively campaigning against” LBJ’s re-election to the Senate. At the instigation of the UCC’s own Reverend Barry Lynn, the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, various Christian conservatives have been penalized financially by the IRS for crossing over this line laid down by the Johnson law, most notably the late Reverend Jerry Falwell. While it is troubling that neither you nor the UCC expressed the slightest concern when a conservative’s freedom of speech was being repressed, this episode inadvertently opens a chance for everyone to come together on the basic issue of freedom of expression by supporting a repeal of the LBJ law, a law that clearly is about nothing more than intimidating people of faith into silence.

Be that as it may, the LBJ law is in place. It is the law, and the IRS must enforce the rules, taking the same approach to the UCC that the UCC’s own Reverend Lynn insisted be taken with Jerry Falwell and other conservatives. The moment your status as a candidate changed, both you and the UCC had two options. One, you could have gracefully refused the invitation, citing the Johnson law and your candidacy. Or the church could simply have withdrawn the invitation to you on the same grounds. Two, the church could have easily complied with the IRS rules under the Johnson law by simply inviting your competitors for the Democratic nomination. Yes, you would have been sharing the spotlight, but under the circumstances that shouldn’t have been too much to ask of you.

In the event, neither of these options — withdrawal or inviting other candidates — was taken. And so you went to Hartford. Almost immediately you violated IRS rules, discussing your presidential candidacy from what, under the circumstances, meets the legal definition of a pulpit. Addressing some 10,000 of our religious brethren you said:

“It’s been several months now since I announced I was running for president. In that time, I’ve had the chance to talk with Americans all across this country. And I’ve found that no matter where I am, or who I’m talking to, there’s a common theme that emerges. It’s that folks are hungry for change — they’re hungry for something new. They’re ready to turn the page on the old politics and the old policies — whether it’s the war in Iraq or the health care crisis we’re in, or a school system that’s leaving too many kids behind despite the slogans.”

Further on, you said this:
“I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premiums by up to $2,500 a year.”

The statement on health care is what’s known in the trade as a campaign promise, and you made it from a UCC pulpit.

Senator, your campaign has now released a statement saying that you had only spoken about your “personal spiritual journey” at the UCC General Synod that day and were not campaigning for president. This is just not true. As if the exact quotes from your speech cited above do not show this to be considerably less than truthful, this decidedly was not what your campaign was saying before you delivered your speech. Quite specifically, the UCC website quoted your campaign officials as follows:
Joshua DuBois, the Obama campaign’s director of religious affairs, said the senator’s Synod speech on Saturday will be his first major address on faith and politics as a presidential candidate. The address, DuBois said, will combine personal details about Obama’s religious experiences with prescriptions for how religious Americans might put their faith into action. It will also focus on “the growing movement of people of faith” from a variety of traditions, “coming together around our connections as a people and using those connections to address our common challenges,” DuBois said.

Shaun Casey, an adviser to the Obama campaign and a professor of ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., said he expects the address to be “as detailed an account of how a person’s faith shapes his policies as I have seen from any presidential candidate.”

The UCC, filled to the brim with obliging liberal staffers, took its cue and obediently headed this announcement on its website of your impending appearance thusly: “Obama’s Synod speech will be his ‘first major address on faith and politics as presidential candidate.'”

UNSURPRISINGLY, ALL OF THIS resulted in a complaint being filed with the IRS following your presentation. In addition to your speech and the stories featured by the UCC’s own website, the complaint cites numerous media accounts describing your appearance as a campaign event. This is bolstered by photographs of volunteers manning Obama campaign tables at the entrance to the Civic Center, volunteers who were then ushered inside for the oldest of campaign rituals — a photo op with the candidate.

As a direct result of your actions, this last week the UCC — our mutual denomination — has now been notified officially by the IRS that it is under investigation.

Our national church suddenly stands in danger of losing its tax exempt status — because of you. Do you have any idea what losing our tax-exempt status could mean to a church like mine here in Pennsylvania if in fact we are tagged financially for federal, state and local taxes? I’ll tell you: this means choices about paying the heat bill versus the tax bill, paying the light bill versus the tax bill, paying for any number of church activities targeted at needy community or church members versus the tax bill and so on. Even more to the point, the president of the UCC, the Reverend John Thomas, has been abruptly forced to appeal to all of the UCC’s members for urgent financial help because of what you have done, informing us that “we will need to secure expert legal counsel, and the cost of this defense, we are told, could approach or exceed six figures.”

Exceeding six figures, of course, means we’re talking over a million dollars. A million dollars to cover for your personal mistake. Of which the UCC has so far managed to raise a paltry $43,847.37 in a special “UCC Legal Fund” as this is written.

You make much about America’s presumed inability to sustain the financial costs of the Iraq War. There is no way, by the admission of Reverend Thomas himself, that the United Church of Christ can sustain the financial costs of your decision to pitch your presidential campaign to the General Synod in violation of the LBJ law without doing serious damage to the most vulnerable in our society. Way down here on the bottom, if my church has to come up with the bucks to pay taxes as well as meet our basic obligations — well, sorry. No can do. You have put the life of every small and struggling UCC church in America — and perhaps some well-to-do ones as well — in danger. This at a time when UCC churches such as the Old First Church in Springfield, Massachusetts, founded in 1637, and St. Paul’s in Summit Hill, Pennsylvania are forced to close their doors, in part because they simply can’t afford the costs of keeping their doors open.

If members do not give to this newly-established-for-the-purpose “UCC Legal Fund,” the Reverend Thomas warns us darkly, there will also be an “impact” on the national church’s office of Our Church’s Wider Mission. Impact? What kind of impact? OCWM, as you well know, is the division of our church that is charged with support of missionaries, disaster preparedness, ministries to the disabled, scholarships and grants, child sponsorship and refugee resettlement, to name but a few of its functions.

The “impact” that Reverend Thomas is warning about is very easy to understand. Because of your decision to proceed with your appearance at the General Synod, on top of the effect on churches like mine, funds dedicated to the likes of missionaries, the disabled and children will have to be cut unless the rest of us pony-up to pay a six-to-seven figure legal bill to deal with this IRS investigation.

Frankly, Senator, this is shameful. You are a United States Senator. A potential President of the United States. You are conducting a campaign making judgment an issue — and this was exactly an issue of judgment and understanding. You of all people should have understood that your appearance in Hartford once you were an announced candidate for president would cause the UCC severe problems with the IRS. As someone who has worked for a president myself, I certainly knew this and said so in print at the time. This wasn’t — and isn’t — rocket science. Many others understood the fact that your appearance could attract unfavorable attention from the IRS, discussing this on the website UCC Truths, a site dedicated to seeing that dissenting UCC members have a voice in our church.

The UCC, by the way, maintains a list of almost 30 UCC-related websites on its UCC funded UCC News “Blog Roll.” Interestingly, the UCC administrator has barred UCC Truths from this Blog Roll, a blatant contradiction of the UCC’s indignant cries about freedom of speech. Did I mention that this administrator, an ordained UCC minister, has acknowledged that he is an Obama campaign worker? Specifically a writer for the People of Faith for Barack? Which means that the UCC is apparently allowing someone officially connected with your campaign to use his position as the church’s official blog administrator for UCC News to keep a church-related website critical of you off the church’s Blog Roll. Quite aside from being the very image of a conflict-of-interest and raising issues of censorship and a lack of diversity, this is what comes under the rubric of an “in-kind contribution” from the UCC to your campaign. Again. What does it take for everyone concerned to understand that the IRS is investigating precisely this kind of linkage between your campaign and the UCC?

THE FACT THAT YOU WENT AHEAD with your Hartford appearance says one of two things: you didn’t know this most basic fact of IRS procedure under the LBJ law that a great many other people knew, something astonishing for a one-time president of the Harvard Law Review (not to mention a sitting U.S. Senator) or, more troubling if true, that you did in fact know but decided to simply appear anyway, consequences to the needy recipients of OCWM’s charities and churches like mine be damned. If the first is correct, at a minimum it hints at an unsettling lack of intellectual curiosity that has directly resulted in serious consequences for our church. If the second is true it gives the disturbing illustration of a chilling arrogance of power and callousness towards both those dependent on OCWM’s good works as well as struggling UCC churches everywhere, both on your part and, yes, on the part of our church leadership.

Certainly the UCC’s leadership, beginning with the Reverend Thomas himself, also bears a considerable portion of the blame for this turn of events. It boggles the mind that a national leader of this very old and very treasured institution of faith that traces its roots to the earliest beginnings of America would so cavalierly risk its mission, finances, local churches and above all our reputation simply to indulge his personal passion for the extremism of far-left wing politics. Yet this is precisely what has been done. The fact that a member of your campaign staff serves as the church’s official blog administrator and is keeping a UCC-related site critical of you off its Blog Roll underscores a stunning inability by both church officials and your campaign to realize the seriousness of an IRS investigation for our church even now.

Be that as it may, we are where we are. While I am in fact both a member of my local church Council, and serve as president of the Council, I must emphasize I am speaking here only as an individual member of the UCC. So let me put this as plainly as I can.

I, for one, have no intention whatsoever of contributing a dime to raising a six-to seven figure legal fund to pay either for your appalling lack of judgment or the scandalous lack of common sense that was shown by Reverend Thomas and the national leadership of our church.

With respect Senator, there is one central question here: What are you going to do about this?

Will you personally raise the money the UCC now needs to pay for your mistake? Will you show the leadership you insist you can provide the country by stepping up and taking responsibility in a situation for which you, personally, bear considerable responsibility? Will you find a way to ensure that the members of the United Church of Christ do not have to divert funds specifically designated for the poor, disadvantaged and needy to pay high-priced lawyers in an investigation by the government that should never have been needed in the first place? An investigation set in motion because over five decades ago one of the preeminent leaders of your party had a felt need to repress free speech by sticking it to some political enemies in Texas? Finally, will you support repeal of the LBJ law and restore the rights of free speech to all churches — liberal or conservative?

The speech you gave that day in June was titled “The Politics of Conscience.” Several times in the course of your talk you told our fellow church members that “our conscience cannot rest” until various public policy concerns — the war in Iraq, health care and others — were met.

I would suggest that there should be a considerable problem of conscience for a presidential candidate who helps himself to a banquet of votes by using his own denomination — in a manner the IRS feels worthy of investigation — and then sticks his co-religionists with both the legal consequences and the check. If in fact your conscience rests over this episode, then the American people have just learned something startling about you, something that is as unattractive as it is dangerous in a potential president.

If this is not the case, if in fact you are willing to step up to the plate and be the leader your supporters insist you to be, then -well — way to go. Good luck raising the money and I certainly hope you repeal the Johnson law. While I won’t be voting for you — those pesky philosophical differences — I will be the first to applaud your leadership on these issues.

In fact, I will be happy to invite you to attend my UCC church while you are campaigning in the Pennsylvania primary. Doubtless there are Obama supporters in our small congregation and even those who may disagree with you who would surely give you a warm UCC welcome.

On another occasion, the revelation of a real estate deal in which you were involved inappropriately by your own admission, you said that you made a “boneheaded mistake.” Your words, not mine. Surely you cannot seriously think that what you’ve done with the UCC so far does not qualify as, well, another “boneheaded mistake.” May I make a professional suggestion? If these kinds of incidents repeat themselves, you have suggested for yourself a nickname your opponents will seize with gusto. It will require considerable amounts of church attendance on your part to pray for forgiveness — both of yourself for giving them the tip, and for those who may substitute the word for this dopey business of using your middle name.

Thanks for your time. I sincerely hope you can get moving on this. And if you do decide to pop into our church some Sunday morning, there would be only one request.

Don’t say anything.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Lord

More from Mr. Lord on Obama’s appearance at UCC, and his declaration that “the “Christian Right” had “hijacked” the Christian faith”.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture War, Politics

Obama-nation – What In The World Does He Stand For?

obamamessiah2.jpg

Ask any average Barrack Hussein Obama worshipper what his accomplishments are to qualify him for contention as President of the United States, or what Obama stands for in particular – and you hear silence, or silly, empty platitudes, meaningless drivel and hoped-for promises to assuage every wish and feeling.

Like this mindless, empty and frightening propaganda piece that could just as easily have put Hitler’s ‘Seig heil!” to music:

It’s all about his words, the smoothness therein, his ability to craft a sermon to itching ears in near-televangelist expertise, yet say nothing of real substance outside of espousing ideas and programs hostile to the very bedrock of our American liberty.

So who is this newfound savior of so many who faint at his rallies? What kind of background and record does he have? Clearly the media darling and chosen heir for the Pope – er, President, is not going to have much if any kind of investigative journalism condicted by the Mainstream presscorps.

But YOU should know everything there is to know about those wanting to rule and micromanage your life and that of your neighbors.

And there is just a site that chronicles who and what Obama is.

Bookmark The Obama File

Discover that Barack Hussein Obama is an African-American who has not shared the black American experience and was, by birth and blood, a Muslim for at least 27 years. His politics are rooted in Marx, socialism and Alinsky. He is a master at shaping his own mythology and completely unqualified to be Commander in Chief.

3 Comments

Filed under Politics

Obama: Jesus’ Sermon Justifies Homosexual Unions

Score another round of unbelievability in the complete redefinition of what both America and Christianity are supposed to represent and stand for.

If Obama’s Americanism and Christianity is not recognizable by traditional and Conservative Americans, it is probably because Barrack Hussein Obama’s ideas of both institutions is upside down and backwards. His little bastardization of Scripture to cherry-pick what he likes, while discarding other biblical passages as “obscure” makes the point. Then again, Obama’s idea of what America is about should frighten every liberty-loving Christian traditionalist to his very core.

We pointed out last September that Barrack Hussein Obama said that he did not like talking to Biblical Christians.

Now perhaps we know part of the reason why: Hussein Obama twists and perverts the Words of Jesus to condone what the entirety of the scriptures tell us is sin. No wonder Obama said in November that he would have to talk with “people we do not like”.

Obama: Sermon on Mount Justifies Same-Sex Unions

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him “less Christian.”

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful. Audio.

Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

As I’ve pointed out before, these two uses of scripture are Satanically perverted and twisted into ideas and doctrines that are completely unbiblical. They are become the main tools that the Secular and so-called “Christian Left” shove into the faces of the faith to condone, promote and encourage sin and debauchery as normal and acceptible behavior to God.

The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments (“anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

The passage from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, which Obama dismissed as “obscure,” discusses people who knew God but turned against him.

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised,” wrote St. Paul. “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith.

“I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view,” Obama said about abortion. “Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.” Audio.

This is absurd. How does one condone and be permissive of an act that is contrary to one’s faith if they have the power to make public policy on that issue?? The only answer, is that Obama does not consider those acts to be contrary to his faith.

Obama opened his town-hall-type meeting at the college with a short speech and then provided lengthy answers to a handful of questions. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider “litmus tests.”

“Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians because I believe that they believe in the social agenda that you have, but they have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus tests as to who is worthy and who is not,” said Forte. “So, I will ask you to speak to those two questions.”(See transcript)

Obama volunteered that he believed Forte was talking about abortion and homosexual marriage, and then he gave answers on both issues that were not as explicit as positions he has staked out on these issues in other venues. Last Thursday, for example, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his Web site an “open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) equality in America.”

In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage–including adoption rights–and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.

“As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,” Obama said in the letter. “I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But 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.”

In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against “gay marriage” and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same “family” status as heterosexual couples.

Okay, so he, like all Democrats talks out of both sides of his face – and lies about his core beliefs depending on what crowd he is addressing. Obviously, the scriptures mean to him what he wants them to mean, and considers other parts of the scriptures “obscure”. REAL Christ-like, changing the plain words of the bible to support a deviant behavior God plainly says was not intended for us. Obviously Obama’s ideas of scripture du jour were influenced by his 20 plus year upbringing as a Muslim where such things are permissible. Imagine what parts of another sacred text; the Constitution, he might decide are “obscure” and worthy to ignore?

Obama’s ability to switch gears and say whatever is convenient for the moment, surpasses even Bill Clinton’s ability to lie. The fact Obama can portray himself as messiah to whatever group he appears before should chill us to the bone. How can one man cause so many from so many different moral backgrounds to begin singing psalms and fainting in his presence?? He is savior to the Homosexual Lobby in an open and published letter on his own campaign site – yet appears before religious folks and is able to justify such encouragement while making it seem as though he shares their moral views.

“I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them,” said Obama on Sunday. “So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view.”

Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a “person” a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a “person” would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother’s womb was also a “person” and thus could not be aborted.

When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade–and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass–Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal.

“On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue,” he said. “I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible …. But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”

Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a “devout Christian.”

“In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts,” he said. “I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often.

“These days, we haven’t been at the home church–I haven’t been home on Sunday–for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values.”

If there is one thing Obama is obviously good at, is saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear without any concrete proofs or specifics.

A very, VERY dangerous combination.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture War, Politics