A Minor Point About the Bush Administration

Now the gentlewoman from Illinois, made a comment about gay marriage and abortion under the Bush administration. I have seen these stats other places as well, and am convinced that these are hailed as talking points by the Democratic Party. But let me point out. STATES are legalizing gay marriage. One of the founding principals of the republican party is the concept of STATES RIGHTS. Therefore by not pushing for a constitutional admendment banning gay marriage Bush is adhering to his Republican roots.

I AM interested to note that Republicans are allowed a moral lapse, so long as it adheres to "State's Rights" - which is correctly characterized as a long held bastion of Republican governance policy.

The flaw in that logic (the logic being that a "state's rights" policy allows gay marriage, thus a republican president is not to blame for it happening), is that it suggests that Party Policy is exempted from moral responsibility.

I dont have a problem with the argument, but since it's the argument being made: doesnt it also apply to Democratic Policy?


Read more...

Bookmark this post:

A Response to Huntley Brown

Why I Can't Vote For Obama

by Huntley Brown
……
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.

I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads, I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader .

I can't vote black because I am black, I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

General Definitive:
There’s a saying we have among some of the young people, and we often saying it laughingly: it goes: “Not that that’s not good….” As you can imagine, there is a “BUT” after that statement, as in, “not that that’s not good, but it’s not the paramount point or most important thing.” It means, basically, that yes, we agree there is value in the speaker’s statement, but we either feel there is a better statement, or a statement closer to the mark – of greater import, and so, we don’t devalue what has been said – we only add greater clarity: we expound upon it; we build upon it to the greater point.

Point #1:
Let’s first establish that we are unclear that Huntley Brown’s life is sin-free. Very few today who are not under the sound of a sin-free gospel message are living a sin-free life, though they may profess Christ – therefore, unless we are sure they are sin-free, we can be pretty sure there is a high possibility they are Babylonian, and (in Revelation 18:2 - And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.) we remain very skeptical of the proponents of false religion as we already KNOW they are prisoners in the cage of every foul and hateful bird. We are not deceived because they call themselves “Christian.”

I am very dubious of the proponents of False Religion, because I know that their leader is, in fact, the Devil, as opposed to our leader, who is Jesus Christ – and we are truly led by the Holy Spirit – whilst who they are led by? I cannot be sure. I am very sure, though, that no False Religion person is my leader. Not TD Jakes. Not “Rev. Weeks” or “Meeks” (who we know beat his wife openly in public and lied about it). Not Billy Graham. Not James Dobson. None of them. They are those people who I’d have to say about many of the things they say: “not that that’s not good…..but.”



Point #2:
From a basic perspective we can agree with Huntley Brown’s statement that our ecclesiastical membership is the most important membership we have as human beings, and the most defining aspect of our lives. I highly doubt that any saved, sanctified saint of God truly has any disagreement there, so this is not a real point of contention. The inflammatory part – the “dig” here – the sticking in of the knife then, is Huntley Brown’s couched accusation of racism. As though any Black person who votes for Obama must be voting for him on simple color alone. As though none of us are bright enough, read enough, educated enough, or think enough to have a real, justifiable reason – other than race – to vote for the man.

The insult to that injurious assumption by our fellow black man, is the (for lack of a better phrase) seeming “Uncle Tom”-ness of it. Huntley Brown is now the black guy being heralded by our white counterparts as the “token” black guy who “sees it from their vantage point.” I don’t say these things to hurt Huntley’s feelings, nor would I, but because they are true and it’s only fair because Huntley has been “true” about his feelings. And what are we if we cannot be true with each other? We shall judge the world. (1 Corinthians 6:1-3 – Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life?)

Truly? The first and probably the only thoughts I had for the initial 2 minutes after reading his article was that he (1) didn’t love himself, (2) was an Uncle Tom, (3) a house _____, (4) brainwashed, (5) a “Christian” Alan Keyes, (6) starting to shuck and jive, and (7) a man who will do anything not to identify with anything black.

Because if we are quoting the media, someone told me that a guy named Chris Rock was asked on Larry King Live (a talk show) if he was voting for Obama because he was black. (Because, you never know - he might be that simple.) Rock apparently replied something to effect that – every other Democrat he voted for was white; why would he NOT vote Democrat simply because this one was black? Why would race be an issue at all? If race mattered, why didn’t they ask last term if he was voting for Kerry because he was white? (This last sentence was me adding to it.)

So I posit: the people making this about “race” are not the black people who have been voting Democratic for years – it is the opponents of Obama, it is Republicans that are “racializing” this presidential ‘race.’ I was going to say “white” republicans, but apparently it is not necessary for white republicans to get their hands dirty: they have blacks to do that for them.

The great shame of it is that our Republican opponents need not even speak their own words: they have only to point to the Huntley Brown’s and Alan Keyes of the world and smile.

Now THAT is a black on black crime. I wont even go into a long diatribe on the whole very real self-hatred that plagues the American black community and mindset, because I’d bore you. However, this mindset is not only real, it is recognized by whites, every other American minority and even Africans, Jamaicans, Haitians, etc., that immigrate here. Why, they say to me, why do American black people hurt each other? Not support each other? Tear down each other? I could not name to you the droves of Cuban, African, Jewish, Polish, Russian and various Asian etc., immigrants and 2nd/3rd generation people that have actually explained to me with great detail the unified cohesiveness their ethnic groups within the United States. They don’t call Miami “Little Cuba” nor does it owe its Latino friendly environment to the fact that Cubans, Dominicans, Argentinians, Chileans, Brazilians, etc., got here and were afraid to elect a Spanish-speaking mayor.

Point #3:
I am intrigued by Huntley’s statement “Christian First, Black Second.” I once wrote an article in school “Race First, Gender Second.” I believed that (and still do), because while I share my womanhood with women of many races, they do not share the burdens of race with me. And our great country has already proven to me in my lifetime (even now), that to it, my skin tone is of greater importance and significance to it than my gender.

Unfortunately, this country is Godless. Since most of the religious world is Babylonian, they too, are Godless. What that means very practically to me, is that this country will never put God first. The Bible speaks of a decline of God in the world – not of an 8th seal, or another reformation. Since that’s so – I trust we are all “Christian First, Anything Else Second,” but America doesn’t really care about that. And since the Devil rules the unsaved, and the Devil rules the Babylonian false religion fake “saved,” we know that TRUE Christianity and worship of God is “off the table.”

And with real honest, true, unhypocritical worship of God “off the table,” we are full circle back around to …. basic social issues again.

Point #4
Christian First, Black Second. Hmm. As I’ve stated, I have no real problem with this statement, and fundamentally, I agree with it. However – consider this: whose Christianity?

Hitler apparently considered himself Christian. Read some of his statements here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

So you see my point as a person of minority race: how can a person like me throw caution to the wind and BLINDLY follow the ravings of someone simply because they claim “Christianity?” That apparently got very dangerous and even deadly for the Jews. So what’s my point?

The day will NEVER come, nor should people suggest to minorities that the day will come in this life, where we as minorities can cease to investigate every motive with regard to our safety, wellbeing, and welfare. I guarantee you that Jewish people are not at all playing when they concern themselves with people they feel may be anti-semitic. Why? Because history has already proven to them the horror of man – self proclaimed “righteous” man - on a “mission from God,” left unchecked, uninvestigated.

I only say - we CANT throw caution to wind when it comes to our race, nor should anyone suggest we should.

So where does that leave us?

1. Huntley Brown is not our Pastor. Nor is he Jesus. Nor are we even sure he’s truly saved. We agree that our paramount membership is our heavenly membership.


2. We are not voting for Barack Obama based on color alone – we actually agree with many democratic values.


3. America is Godless. False Religion is Godless. Jumping on the bandwagon behind people who aren’t living saved isn’t going to “save” our country, because the Devil is still at the head.


4. Minorities – blacks in this case, have every right to be skeptical of, and to question the motives of men shouting “Christian” with a bible in their hands. Suggesting we don’t is incredible, because few short years ago men shouting “Christian” enslaved us, and told us God ok’d it. The Devil was also their head. So the Devil at the head is not a good thing regardless of the name.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, and human cloning wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.

Really? Lets look at it.

Abortion:
Check out this article on Abortion Trends under George Bush. It’s the second article on the page, so you’ll have to scroll down. Apparently, all rhetoric aside, abortions rose under Bush, after having declined steadily for years. Somebody said something about the ….economy….and not being able to afford children.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013

Same-Sex Marriage:
Check out this Washington Post article on Bush’s waffling on the same-sex marriage issue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136712,00.html

And I have a question: if gay people have wanted to get married all this time, how come they managed to get the ability to do it on the Bush Administration’s watch?

Also – it appears John McCain supports pseudo gay-marriage:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/

There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito.

Really? People think that Justices Roberts and Alito will throw off the 5/4 balance of the Court into a 7/2 conservative majority. http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Supreme_Court

Wait. Speaking of machinations in appointments, why aren’t we concerned with the reason George Bush put in Alberto Gonzalez, and then basically told him to fire all the US attorneys, and THEN left Gonzalez holding the bag and needing to resign?

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
2. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/09/29/2008-09-29_attorney_general_michael_mukasey_names_p.html

Yes, same reason Sandra Day O’Connor waited until he was elected to retire: so she could be assured that a conservative judge was put in in her stead. Perhaps he wants them to overturn the Patriot Act. Perhaps they will undo the destruction of the constitutional rights that we had before Bush, and restore our civil liberties.

What’s next? Overturning desegregation? Just check out this article.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Jayne11.htm

Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.

The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember, this is a live baby.)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, 20 causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

Inflammatory and somewhat myopic. I could simply say that John McCain supports adultery, and went out with a much younger woman while his terminally ill (or handicapped?) wife stayed at home with the children.

Abortion is wrong. So is adultery. Both are probably going to Hell.

Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification, but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.

Inflammatory. And while I don’t agree with abortion, nor with a parent not being notified, if I remember from classes, I think the large push with The World (the “world” being the “world” in the biblical sense) behind not requiring young girls to notify their parents was in large part because of the intra-family rapes/incest that happen (and still happen in numbers in our country). A 14 year old incest victim may have a problem telling her indifferent mom that she’s pregnant by dad, junior, or uncle Johnny. It would be like asking an abused wife to get her husband’s permission to go to the police station.

And since there is no way to tell abuse victims from fast little girls until after the fact, the law is broad and encompassing of all girls, rather than narrow and encompassing only incest victims.

Personally? I think abortion is wrong. God is displeased with it, and its horrible. It fills me with great sadness to even discuss it. But I also feel that to legislate what a woman may do with her body is not only paternalistic, it can and will end up being fatal to women. Why? Because women – unsaved women are going to have abortions – legal or not. We all know illegal abortions HAPPENED. The entire point of legalizing abortions was that they (1) recognized that women were getting them anyway, and (2) women were DYING in droves, from backroom operations.

By legitimizing abortion and legalizing it, all these sinners did was acknowledge that they (1) were sinners, (2) were STILL going to sin, and (3) that they wanted to live even though they were going to sin.

So. I’m not for abortion. But I’m not for fornication either – why don’t they “illegalize” that? Making abortion illegal is NOT going to make these women get saved. And isn’t salvation the only REAL thing we care about?

In this I say leave the world to the world, and I try to stay out of it. I am glad that they are not forcing incest victims to have to go to their parents, but I hope and pray that those scared little girls will still make the right choice and have the baby.

Was that inflammatory? If it was – well then, inflammatory response for an inflammatory statement.

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment, but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?

The reason is clear.

Obama is distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright, because Wright has become a very politicized figure. There is a reason atheists in this country always want to focus on the American first amendment right of “Separation of Church and State.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The reason political men did that, is because they were able to see the ill-effects of religion on political affairs (think….Saudi Arabia now. Think…the Crusades. Think….Jihads. think the Israel-Palestinian conflict right now!). Now, the great dichotomy is that within the confines of religious enclaves, we all KNOW that religion is VERY proactive, and not at all a-political. In fact, religion is INCREDIBLY political, and wants to be.

Having said that, even KNOWING that, America – in order that it can be and continue to be the global melting pot that it is, has openly repudiated religion governing politics. So. Religion can influence politics, but the accepted line is that religion and governance are separate.

Since that’s so, when Wright became a political figure, Obama had to send a clear message to the populace that while Wright is his Pastor and friend, he (Obama) is not fanatical zealot, who is going to be and lead this country as a Wright-Puppet.

But consider: Obama has a great weight of precedence before him.

1. John F. Kennedy, as a Catholic, faced this same pressure, and had to distance himself from the Pope.
2. George W. Bush, faced this pressure with the whole gay-marriage thing above, and admist pressure apparently recanted and allowed same-sex “unions.”

What the American people always want to know is: ARE YOU A FIGUREHEAD?  Obama is saying no, he is not a figurehead.

Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe, etc. The question I have is, what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?

Hmm. I fundamentally disagree with this characterization – but it may be what false religion teaches.

Our Pastors “disciple” us, for lack of a better word, and we aren’t being made in “their” image. In fact, if I remember correctly, they often tell us, “follow me as I follow Christ.” Even so far as to say something along the lines as “if I get off base (read: off the scripture), do not follow me.” So. The image produced in our lives should be not in THEIR image, but in CHRIST’S image. Because at base, we are all the “disciples” of Christ.

Furthermore. I don’t know what false religion teaches, but I believe that in the Church of God each mature saint has some measure of Holy Ghost discernment. A saint should be able to tell when the Ark is falling, even though we should not touch it. We are to let it fall. (2 Samuel 6:2-7) Beyond that, God is faithful even to let each mature saint know and to bear witness if a minister or pastor makes an “uncertain” sound. (1 Corinthians 14:8 - For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?)

Are we really going to stop Obama from doing something the Bible allows us to do?

Would you support a white President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:

1. Commitment to the white community.
2. Commitment to the white family.
3. Adherence to the white work ethic.
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the white community .
5. Pledge to allocate regularly, a portion of personal resources for strengthening and supporting white institutions.
6. Pledge allegiance to all white leadership who espouse and embrace the white value system.
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the white value system.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?

Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.

This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discover he went to a racist church.

Again. Huntley either hates himself, or forgot he was Black. In his race to assimilate, Huntley forgot that (unless he is a recent immigrant) his African forebears built this country on their backs (literally) and have no financial acknowledgement or wealth to show from it. Indians have the reservations. Japanese have reparations. Blacks have mental shackles, systemic derogation of the black family, ghettos and a slap in the face with a “get over it.”

This rhetoric and mindframe exists out of necessity - the same reason they have Jewish hospitals, Black Colleges, Chinatown, Greektown, Little Italy, Little Odessa, etc. No one is mad at the Irish when they give each other money to open a bar. If we’re honest, we’ll acknowledge that for some (Black Colleges, for example), segregation was a reality – a requirement. Why, my own mother remembers drinking from a “Black” water fountain. Accuse her of that. Call her a racist because of that. How DARE she drink out of a Black fountain! But wait – we cant accuse her of that though, because a white governmental authority forced it upon her and every other black person. Who knows - maybe the Chinese indentured servants in old America were forced to live in one area of town – thus beginning the whole “Chinatowns?” Etc. Ad nauseum.

I believe you see where I’m going with this. First, we are enslaved and treated like animals – to effectively do this they had to break the family mindset and mental consciousness of self-love/self-worth of the Africans they brought over; later segregated into our own societies – by the government, not by our own choosing; and now we are being accused for embracing that very society we were forced to embrace in past years. How our ancestors would cry if they saw us – truly William Lynch did his job.

We are first refused assimilation into white American society, or allowed in as second-class citizens only, and when we finally decide we have enough pride and self-love to embrace our own enclaves of humanity as first-class citizens, we are accused for embracing the very societies forced upon us.

What are we saying Huntley? That even though we KNOW this country has a history of outright and institutionalized racism, I have to pretend they don’t, because it makes them feel bad to remind them of it.

Wow. I’m not even allowed to love myself.

The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.

A church can't have a value system based on race. The church's value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if its a white church or a black church--it's still wrong. Anyone from either rac e who attends a church like this would never get my vote.

Truer words have not been spoken, but I fear there may be a note of hypocrisy here. We already know Huntley’s church is Babylonian and probably not the “True” Church of God as we know it. However – we have to ask ourselves – do we REALLY want to get racial? REALLY? Are we REALLY ready for that? Huntley’s racial issues are surface and trite – forget that stuff. If we’re going “racial” let’s go all the way!

If the God and the Church of God really is color blind, how come very few of our churches are interracial?”

If the God and the Church of God really is color blind, how come the churches that are interracial have mostly white pastors? What that says to me is that more black people are willing to assimilate into white society, but far fewer whites are willing to assimilate into black society (and what that means practically is that blacks are willing to have a white man as their leader, but whites are unwilling to have a black man as their leader). Sounds kind of familiar doesn’t it? Perhaps because it’s also the trend we see being played out in our current political climate. It appears to me that not only will Christian whites probably NOT sit under a black pastor, Christian blacks are seriously being told we are NOT allowed to choose a black man as our nation’s political leader.


Finally, if God and the Church of God really is color blind, how can any saved, sanctified saint of God really stand against interracial marriage? How in God’s name (and I DO mean God’s name) can the WORLD outpace us on this front, when we are the head and not the tail?

I ask these as rhetorical questions, and I understand they are weighty – I do make any judgments, nor do I expect answers. I don’t have the answers, but I feel that since we are digging deep on the race issue, maybe we can dig into and contemplate issues that really affect us and our walk with Christ as children of God.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book, 'A Black Theology of Liberation.' Cone wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.'

Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?

Speculative, assumptive and inflammatory.

See my very first point about Jeremiah Wright. It really IS possible to know someone, and to eat their meat and toss their bones. My Dad’s not saved, and I truly think he’s a great man with a lot of good ideas/thoughts, but wholly wrong on the religion/salvation front.

Eat the meat – toss the bones. Easy. Is it seriously hard to believe that others cannot do the same?

So what does all this mean for the nation?

In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing -- judgment.

Read 1 Samuel 8:6 when Israel asked for a king.
First God says in 1 Samuel 8:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king20who will reign over them will do.'

Then God says, 1 Samuel 8:18 ' When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.'

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us.
20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.'
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD.
22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'

This analogy is way off base, and very inexact.


(1) if the President is king, we already have a king.


(2) if electing a President in 2008 is like asking God for a king, we are way beyond the point of no return because they put the election system in place many many years ago, and we’ve been electing a “king” for years.


(3) Based on point #2 above, the culpability for asking for a “king” lies with the people who first put our American political system together. We would be the Israelites many years later.


(4) If we accept Huntley’s erroneous application of scripture, doesn’t that also mean that electing John McCain is like electing a king – and wont that ALSO displease God?


(5) Since Huntley is so off-point here, should we trust his ability to dissect and apply scripture?


(6) Since we know Huntley is Pro-John McCain, isn’t he failing to discuss that his scripture also applies to his own candidate?


(7) Isn’t that hypocritical of him?


(8) Doesn’t that mean he just wrested the scripture for his own benefit?

Here is what we know for sure. God is not schizophrenic.

He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.

I can understand Huntley’s point from a bird’s eye view, but in a microcosm, it is very arrogant (scarily so), for a man to suggest he is right in his choice in such a gray area, and leave himself no margin for human error. I do not even make such a claim about Obama.


The point here is about interpretation of God’s will. The scripture shows that (Proverb 4:18 - But the path of the just [is] as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.) we obtain instruction from God – and as we grow, we grow into more knowledge, more understanding. Other scriptures caution us as well: Jeremiah said (Jeremiah 10:23 - O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps.).


So. Since we know that we may not know, we can only do what we feel is right, according to what we feel God has shown us. But you know the most awesome part for ALL of us? God’s Will will triumph – always. At all times, and in every place, we can have utmost comfort in knowing that God will win the day – regardless of how any of us vote. Scripture proves it. Consider:

(Psalm 75:6-7 - For promotion [cometh] neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God [is] the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.)


This scripture is of great comfort to me, because in 2004, I voted Democrat, and before you ask – yes, I felt very strongly that I should. However, even when voting, I very strongly remember the politically charged climate, and I remember driving down the road and asking God to have his perfect way – even if his “way” meant George Bush was re-elected. At some point I stopped caring about what I wanted, and I told God that if he promoted George Bush again, I would accept it as his will – in fact, I prayed that if perchance I was wrong, and the nation needed Bush again, that he would have his way.

It hurt. But I accepted George Bush as our President. Again. So the bottom line is that, however we vote, we should pray that God have HIS way, and we should have a good spirit whatever happens and rest in knowing that, indeed, God DID have his way.

I actually don’t mind McCain that much, and would have voted for him rather than Hillary Clinton. What is scaring me now is that I KNOW I wont keel over raving mad if McCain is elected, despite my voting Democrat. I harbor strong doubts that Republicans will be able to accept Obama being elected with as much decorum.

Maybe I am the one not hearing, but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.

As far as I’m concerned, so does McCain and much of the Republican agenda.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look20God in the face and say; 'Father, based on Your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against You. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though You destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.'

Yes, easily.

I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions.

 I can.

Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends. Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,

1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?

A socially responsible value system that is concerned about the poor, about minorities, immigrants, women and the little man. A value system that doesn’t want to destroy our civil freedoms and liberties. A value system that is not war-mongering and/or imperialist. A value system that isn’t destroying our national economy, weakening our dollar, mortgaging our country to the third world, fast becoming a dictatorship, and turning our country into a 3rd world country.

2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?

God. And he will. Very soon. In that, we have accord.

My love and prayers in Christ
We are all sinners saved by grace but we need to have some absolute laws to govern society or else we willself-destruct.

This is proof that Huntley is not saved – he is mired in False Religion. Sin is in his life – thus he has no “spiritual discernment” of the Holy Ghost, and the Devil is his head. (1 Corinthians 2:11 - For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.) And again here: (1 Corinthians 2:14,15 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.)

What has really bothered me is the fact that our beautiful black women constitute only 6% of the population, yet they comprise 36% of the abortion industry's clientele. Obama has done nothing to stop this. Most people don't know that the leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit us blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations. Obama has done nothing to stop this?

 Stop. Are we seriously concerned about this statistic? 36% is great. According to this data (http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp), 57% are white women, and the large majority of black abortions come from the states of Georgia, Maryland, NJ, and NY – essentially, the Northeast, and those are the only states where black abortions marginally eclipse white abortions. Those states, I might add, are NOT Senator Obama’s (IL) constituency. 76% of abortions in Arizona (McCain’s Constituency) were white; 4.7% were black. There are other statistics that I’d argue are FAR more pressing on the black community.

Like this one: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988183,00.html

Or this one (from China, which is admittedly, hypocritical of them): http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175421.html


Read more...

Bookmark this post:

Selective Republican Forgiveness?

Let me say that I while I am not a fan of Palin, I dont think she's the Devil. In fact, I think once the (media) feeding frenzy is over, no one else (read: Democrats, I mean) really does either. My level of respect for someone who can admit the same about Obama while disagreeing with him is ratcheted up quite a few notches.


No. What is being played upon at this point is basic emotion - because it sells. And it works on even the most erudite. Because I have to admit, while I could care less about what happens in the Palin household, and while I have nothing but the utmost sympathy for parents whose teenage daughter comes home knocked up: there is something visceral about my reaction to Palin's knocked up daughter - and it has nothing to do with Palin herself.

It has everything to do with a ingrained sense of outrage over the idea of republican selective forgiveness: that when John Edwards (lets just insert "Democrat" here), sleeps with a woman who isnt his wife (read: adulterer), he's the Democratic Demon Child - but when Palin's daughter turns up knocked up (read: fornicator - potential abortion candidate (that part being speculative at this point seeing as how mommy/daddy probably nixed that option after the public became aware)), we should approach her family with love and understanding, and......gasp...forgiveness!

Shouldn't we approach all of the potential candidates that way, with that same tender understanding?

Yes. I feel betrayed. I feel betrayed that the self-portrayed "Moral Party" are the same people who would rip into Jamie Lynn Spears for daring to write a "How to Mother" book, and tear her to pieces over coffee, deem her an unfit mother - or if anything, definitely unfit to lead/teach other mothers - all because of having a knocked up teenager ---- and these same people are suddenly placing Palin on a pedastal of suffering parenthood, and asking for a tender approach to her home and her feelings?

Give me a break. She gave up privacy from media intrustion and judgment when she took the center stage. I am constantly baffled by the candidates' tiptoe approach to her - as if she might crack and break if we get "too personal." THIS is going to be our VP? Someone whose tender lady feelings we're even afraid to hurt?

I would have rathered Hillary Clinton, and I seriously disliked her, but at least I did not think she was a scared little puppy. The gloves are off, Palin. Welcome to the Big Leagues.

Read more...

Bookmark this post: