I’ve gotten the question what I think about Christians who support Barack Obama’s re-election bid. My response is that I question either their sincerity or their sanity. How else, unless unserious about their faith or a few bricks short of a load, could a Christian support the most anti-Christian president in American history?
Let me start by saying I understand how explosive of an accusation this could appear to be to call President Obama the most anti-Christian president in our history. So let’s stipulate a couple things right off the bat. First, you have to keep in mind that we’re working with a small sample of 43 guys. Yes, I know there have been 44 presidents, but 2 of them were the same guy, Grover Cleveland, with his terms split. So 43 guys that you’re comparing Mr. Obama to when you make this accusation. It’s not saying he’s the most anti-Christian world leader in history.
Second, let’s really define what we mean by anti-Christian. It does not mean he is the Antichrist. It does not even mean that he’s not a Christian. Seriously. There are plenty of Christians who support ideas that are detrimental to the faith, or that undermine the cause. That’s what we’re talking about here. When you step back and look at the policies, the positions, the worldview of the various presidents of America’s past, Barack Obama is by far the most hostile to basic Christianity than any other.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) absolutely grilled, fileted and served President Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu the other day at a Senate Energy committee hearing. I mean this was brutal for the administration to watch. Not that I feel bad for them. President Obama is the one who went out and tapped a guy to head up his energy policies who – shortly before becoming Energy Secretary – had boldly proclaimed his belief that “somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.”
If you haven’t seen the exchange, you need to. If anybody was under the impression that this coming election would be about the differences and disagreements within the Republican Party, watch this hearing and think again. If gas prices do what gas prices always do during the summer – go up – then the disagreements between Mitt, Newt and Rick are going to seem like distant memories to the American voter. Guaranteed.
So here’s a question for you: suppose that a year before the 2000 presidential election, Dick Cheney was on tape stating, “We have to find a way to make Halliburton’s profits increase.” Then a few years into the Bush/Cheney administration it just so happens that Halliburton’s profits were increasing dramatically because of the government contracts they were suddenly receiving. What do you suppose the liberals would say with assistance from their leftist media cohorts? Do you think there would be questions asked or conclusions drawn?
And then suppose that in the midst of the controversy, White House press secretary Dana Perino or Tony Snow or Ari or whoever it was at the time explained it away by saying, “Oh, he said that BEFORE he became Vice President. Now that he’s Vice President, he doesn’t feel that way, and you should understand that.” Do you think the media would accept that? Would liberals demand that we give him the benefit of the doubt?
Yet that is exactly what is going on with this whole Steven Chu thing. The President’s Energy Secretary said just before becoming the Energy Secretary he wanted to see gas prices increased to the level of Europe. He becomes Energy Secretary and we have doubled our price at the pump since then. Yet, when asked about it, here’s what Press Secretary Jay Carney had to say:
I can’t say I’ve ever really cared for the Chicago Bears. And now I have another reason as their head coach Lovie Smith has decided to join in the war against Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Dream” by shilling for Obama’s racially divisive campaign strategy:
Chicago Bears head coach Lovie Smith doesn’t seem to mind that President Obama has disappointed many in the African American community as he is now asking that same community to “be patient and look into the future,” while actively supporting his reelection bid.
“I’m pleased with where we are now,” Smith says in a new web video.
“The President has done so much: health care, end of the Iraq War, new jobs, but it‘s not about where we’re at now, it‘s about our future and that’s what I’m excited about. You have to be patient and kind of look into the future. And our future is looking bright because I trust the man that will be leading us in the future. And that man is Barack Obama. I have the President‘s back and it’s left up to us, as African Americans, to show that we have his back also[.] [J]oin African Americans for President Obama today.”
I asked this question a couple weeks ago, but how would a “Whites for Romney” go over? How would that fly? Can someone please explain to me how this transparent appeal to racial divides is not seen as offensive? Explain to me how saying things like, “it’s up to us, as African Americans, to show that we have his back?” Why? Why is it up to those with dark skin pigmentation to show they have the back of a socialist and secular progressive radical? Why can’t people with dark skin pigmentation hold to conservative Christian views? How is that not offensive?
Contradiction is a way of life on the left. So much so that it’s virtually unrecognizable to them when they self-contradict. They don’t even realize that it’s happening. Take, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s off the cuff remarks made at the Women of the World Summit in New York City yesterday:
Clinton’s words began innocuously, as she spoke about an encounter she had at a recent town hall meeting in Tunis, Tunisia. She said that an Islamic woman stood up and shared her personal experience working with the U.S. and the surprise that many had at her willingness to collaborate with the West (and vice-versa).
Then, Clinton told the audience, ”I told her that, in America, in Tunisia, anywhere in the world, women should have the right to make their own choices about what they wear...how they worship...the causes that they support.” These words led Clinton to make statements about extremists who are trying to strip away women’s rights across the world.
That’s incredible to me that she is making such a statement as the administration she serves is in the midst of telling millions of American women that they must violate their conscience and finance free abortifacients. What about the women whose cause is Christian morality, Ms. Clinton? Or what about Catholic women whose convictions teach them to avoid contraceptives. Why is the administration opposing the rights of women to make their own choices about the causes they support? Hmmm.
Now, let’s get onto that “extremists” stuff. Bet you can’t guess where this is going:
Some very interesting testimony took place at Capitol Hill last Thursday that you need to know about. Particularly as the left is continuing to thrust social issues in front of everybody’s face for reasons that I think are totally based on wishful thinking. Now maybe this will end up working out for them, but I just don’t see it.
Liberals are victims of their own success in this election. By that I mean that they won the argument four years ago. They won the battle for the public’s confidence and trust. They won the White House, they won both houses of Congress. As a consequence they won the appointments to federal courts. That’s all you can do – it’s a full sweep. So that’s great at the time, but then presents a bit of a challenge to whoever accomplishes it. The challenge is that you are going to be held totally responsible for what comes of it. And what’s come of liberal control in Washington, D.C. is not pretty.
Massive deficits and debt, no budget even proposed since what, 2009? We’ve seen the massive expansion of the role of government, the stagnation of a high unemployment rate longer than any time since the Great Depression. Public confidence is at all time lows. Kids are staying on their parents insurance policies well into adulthood now. The government is wanting to take over college loans, they have control of healthcare, they’re making orders to violate people’s religious conscience. And that’s just in a couple short years.
Imagine that you’re driving down the road and some woman driver comes up behind you driving erratically. After a while, she pulls out to pass you and you notice that her daughter is in the front seat with her. Your kids are with you too. As the woman passes, she leans over and flies the bird – flips you off – as she speeds by. Unnerving, right?
Now, suppose that after a few minutes of her being out of sight on up the road, you come upon a burning vehicle in the ditch and notice it’s the woman’s car. She and her daughter are trapped inside the vehicle. What do you do? Seriously, what do you do in that situation?
As you think about it, realize that this isn’t a made up story. It just happened to a woman in Florida. Here’s the account:
CRYSTAL RIVER, Fla. (CBS Tampa) – Local resident Kristyn Dominy risked her life to save that of another driver on W. Ozello Trail — even though the other driver had made a rude gesture at her just moments before.
According to the Tampa Bay Times, Dominy, 22, was driving home on the windy path with her daughter when a Jeep sped past her, its driver behaving erratically and making crude hand motions at her.
“She did flip me off whenever she passed me,” Dominy told the paper about the events preceding the crash, which took place Monday night.
Not long after, Dominy spotted the car on fire, stuck in some trees just off the road.
“My first thought when I came around the corner and saw that her vehicle was on fire, I was thinking karma,” Dominy told the Tampa Bay Times. “But the same time, I could never — even though she flipped me off down the road — I could never just sit there and watch that happen.”
As this whole liberal generated outrage over Rush Limbaugh runs its course and dies the miserable death that it’s dying – in case you didn’t know, apparently at least one advertiser who bailed on Rush has come crawling back and has been denied by the radio giant – the backfiring has begun.
Now you might remember that I was saying towards the middle of last week, as Carbonite’s stock was tanking and as Mr. Obama’s Press Secretary started taking questions about a pretty apparent double standard on “offensive rhetoric” that Mr. Obama apparently holds, that Obama’s anxiousness to distract from his offensive contraception mandate was going to come back and bite him.
Remember, the outrage the left put out there after Rush’s “slut” remark was all feigned. It was all fake. They weren’t really upset about the use of the term. How do I know? It’s pretty simple – look at what they say themselves. Now again, that doesn’t justify or make Rush’s comment okay. It wasn’t...which is why he rightly apologized. But it does reveal that the whole shock and outrage that you were hearing and seeing from these liberals was nothing but a big front for another cause. And what was that cause? I think it was two-fold. For people like Obama, it was an immediate opportunity to distract from his truly offensive actions in violating Christians’ rights of conscience without remorse. For others on the left, it was a great opportunity to take another crack at silencing Rush.