Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

While we relate the words above to exasperated parents wearied by the incessant “why’s” of their non-comprehending children, I have something a bit different in mind. “Because I say so” is the principle by which truth is established in our culture.

Take, for instance, the silly and adolescent opposition by Mayor Rahm Emanuel to Chick-fil-A’s building a new restaurant in Chicago: “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.”

The controversy, of course, goes back to the views of Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A’s president, concerning homosexual marriage: “We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit.” He went on to say, “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Mayor Emanuel’s former boss, President Obama, ran for the presidency as a proponent of traditional marriage: “I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Well, that was so 2008 and necessary to win the election. Sensing a change in the political winds, President Obama now states, “I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

And now, according to Baptist Press, “The Democratic Party’s new platform is set to include a plank endorsing the legalization of gay marriage, marking the first time that either major party has taken such a position, several media outlets reported Monday (July 30).” No one should be surprised.

Evidently Mr. Emanuel had little problem with then-Senator Obama’s opposition to homosexual marriage. What was a good idea in 2008, however, no longer reflects “Chicago values.” Why? Because Mr. Emanuel says so. The definition of marriage must be changed. Why?  Because President Obama, ever the political opportunist, says so. Recognition of homosexual marriage is a must. Why? Because the Democratic Party says so.

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama, the Democratic Party, and many other Americans, including Republicans who also support homosexual marriage though the party as a whole does not, have simply set themselves against God. Truth cannot be simply whatever we say. Jesus said, “I am the . . . truth” (John 14:6). The Scriptures clearly reveal that marriage is between a man and a woman (Gen 2:23-24; Matt 19:4-6). Homosexuality is clearly condemned in both the Old and the New Testaments (Gen 19:1–11; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 1 Tim 1:8–10). To say otherwise is simply dishonest.

Mr. Cathy stands in stark and courageous contrast to the pandering Emanuels, Obamas, and other left-wing activists that have hijacked the Democratic Party and given us people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as national leaders: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘We know better than You’ as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a proud, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

“Because I say so”? I wouldn’t try that at the final judgment.


Read Full Post »

It is distressing to be led by ungodly leaders, especially when they consistently pronounce as good that which is evil. President Obama continues to do so, as illustrated in his recent affirmation of a woman’s right to choose to end the life of her unborn baby:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Notice the President’s argument. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision affirmed “that government should not intrude on private family matters.” The ending of an unborn child’s life is a “private family matter.” What if the baby were brought home and the mother decided that there was more involved in caring for this child than she had anticipated? She had thought she could continue her college education without too much of a problem, but now she realizes she had miscalculated. This is “a private family matter,” right? Why is it now suddenly government’s matter to say that taking the life of a two-week old baby is murder, but the government blesses the taking of a two-month old unborn baby’s life?

The President calls this “a woman’s right to choose.” To choose what, Mr. President? Please complete that infinitive phrase? To choose what? To choose to end the life of her unborn child. Then again, putting it that way sounds much less innocuous than simply saying “a woman’s right to choose.”

The President informs us that a woman’s having an abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right.” A fundamental constitutional right? Something fundamental would be spelled out, right? Not only does the Constitution not explicitly affirm a woman’s right to end the life of her unborn child, it does not even imply it. There was never, to my knowledge, a document written in the latter 1700’s concerning the Constitution which even discussed the idea that having an abortion is a legitimate right. Put quite simply, such a notion was unthinkable.

The final sentence in the President’s quote almost defies description: “And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” Again the President makes an illogical statement based on unmitigated emotion. The lives of our sons are not detoured by bearing a child, so evidently neither should the lives of our daughters. If we want equality, why don’t we make the biological father really accountable for his actions? Why must the unborn child pay the price for selfish pleasure of others.

The taking of the life of an unborn baby, unless the physical life of the mother is unquestionably jeopardized, is murder. Those who seek it and those who agree to it, as well as doctors and abortion clinic owners who profit by it, have blood on their hands. Do not legislators who approve and defend abortion on demand have blood on their hands? Does not a president who defends abortion have blood on his hands? Does not an America which refuses to raise its voice about the barbarism of a “woman’s right to choose” have blood on its hands?

Read Full Post »

I am quite convinced that liberals in our country want to expand the underclass of citizens who depend upon the federal government for their sustenance. When I hear politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama express their concern for the middle class, I hear a desire to expand the ranks of the “victimized,” the ones who are convinced that, but for the dastardly “wealthy,” they themselves would be doing better in life. If liberals can convince the middle class that government regulations and the redistribution of wealth need to take place so that the middle class gets “its fair share,” they will succeed in expanding their base of support for upcoming elections.

Those who see government as the solution to their material woes may find comfort in the following “psalm.”

The Government is my shepherd; I shall not want.
It makes me lie down in green pastures. It leads me beside still waters.
It restores my soul. It leads me in paths of self-pity for its expansion’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for the Government is with me; its pronouncements and promises, they comfort me.
It prepares a table before me in the presence of my enemies; it fills my mailbox with checks; my hope overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall rest in my Government’s care forever.

Read Full Post »

Conservatives are marking the mid-term U.S. elections as the day we “take back” the country. Count me pessimistic.

Nothing outside a great awakening brought about by our sovereign and merciful God will turn our country from its godless direction. The murder of the unborn will continue unabated. The entertainment industry will continue pushing the envelope of what is acceptable for viewing. The entrenched, monolithic education system, notwithstanding the many godly teachers employed, will continue treating our schools as entities for social engineering instead of institutions for teaching academic subjects. We will still have occupying the White House the most radical man who has ever ascended to the presidency of the United States.

This is not to say that November 2 is unimportant. It is undeniably important. At best, though, we will elect fallen individuals who will try to slow down the continuing erosion of values upon which our nation was founded. The number of Americans who see homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle will grow. Perhaps the federal legalization of homosexual “marriage” will be postponed, but it will be for only a season. A woman’s legal “right” to end the life of her unborn child will continue. The march toward socialism, a philosophy which strips individuals of both responsibility and incentive, may be slowed, but it will not be stopped.

I hasten to add that I am not among those evangelical and Reformed ministers who are “above the fray” of partisan politics, who claim to be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage but who vote for liberal Democrats out of a misguided sense of compassion. There is nothing compassionate about increasing dependency upon the government. Indeed, such policies enslave citizens.

I will most definitely vote on November 2, and I will vote for conservative candidates, but my hope and assurance will be in a sovereign Creator, not in the men and women we send to Columbia and Washington, D.C.

Read Full Post »

President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize today in Oslo, saying that he accepted it with “deep gratitude and great humility.” The president acknowledged the controversy over his being awarded the prize in the first place, a proper response considering that nominations had to be in before he had served as the nation’s chief executive for one month.

Acknowledging that he accepted the award with “great humility,” however, fails to resonate with me. Saying it doesn’t make it so. An exhibition of humility would have been to decline the prestigious award when first notified. Americans of all political persuasions believe that the award is premature at best. Humility would have said, “While I appreciate the honor which the committee has sought to bestow upon me, I cannot accept it because I simply have not earned it. May it go to someone who has invested years, if not decades, to the pursuit of peace.”

Read Full Post »

The following started off as a response to some posts in an off-topic thread on the Logos Bible Software Forum, but I decided to put it here instead. (By the way, the new Logos Bible Software 4 is worth checking out!)

  • Sarah Palin has been stereotyped by much of our news media (opinion writers masquerading as journalists) in the same way that Dan Quayle was. That, on the surface, she did poorly in early interviews may have been as much of the McCain handlers’ fault as hers. Put a microphone in front of any of us and we’ll say some pretty stupid stuff that can get constantly replayed by those who disagree with our basic positions.
  • Do those who believe that a display of superior intelligence is essential for the vice presidency honestly consider Joe Biden to be one so endowed? Really? For every Palin gaffe, I’ll give you a Biden.
  • Why does Barack Obama come off as one possessing superior intelligence? We can throw in some jaw-dropping Obama responses, too, with our Biden gaffes, but they don’t get much play in our “news” media. Obama is super cool and gives a wonderful speech from the always-present teleprompter. He bounces down steps without touching the handrail. Cool is often confused for intelligence.
  • Frankly, I think Palin and Biden and Obama and McCain and George W. Bush are decently intelligent people.
  • Most of the news media in the U.S. are quite liberal on the political spectrum. Those who champion their causes (pro-choice on abortion, homosexual rights, etc.) are portrayed as wonderful, intelligent leaders. Those who do not are portrayed as doofuses. Reagan was denigrated by our press, as most conservatives are. Carter, Clinton, and Obama are portrayed as deep thinkers.
  • The word “evangelical” has lost almost all sense of meaning so as to have become essentially useless. When folks call Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen are viewed as evangelicals, we need a replacement term for evangelical.
  • Nations often get the leaders they deserve. We Americans so thrive on celebrities and entertainment that we have elected a man to the presidency because of what he has portrayed himself to be, not what he has proven himself to be. Where has Mr. Obama really shown himself to be capable of leading a nation? Did he excel in college and law school? He did become editor of the Harvard Law Review, but that position’s going to the student with the highest grades was changed in the 1970’s. What about after law school? Our president has shown himself capable of being elected to office, from editor of the HLR to Illinois state senator to less than three years as a U.S. senator to now president of the U.S. We’ll have to wait to see what really comes of it, but no one that I’ve read has been particularly impressed with what he did as either a state senator or U.S. senator.
  • Citizens in other nations often cast aspersions upon the U.S., but they have their issues, not so dissimilar to those of the U.S. They’ve got their poverty and discrimination. Admittedly, a lot of the evidence put forth is anecdotal. Much, but certainly not all, of the poverty in our country is a result of bad choices. I’ve been in homes of people who seemed quite destitute to find them with a cable television package that I could not justify for my own home. Drugs and out-of-wedlock births greatly contribute to poverty. And yes, the leaders of other nations are also often portrayed in a quite uncomplimentary light.
  • God is sovereign over the affairs of men. Even in a representative democracy, God ultimately chooses who leads. And yet we as believers are to be involved in the process, attempting to understand the issues at stake and how those seeking to be elected will deal with those problems.

Read Full Post »

Confusing cool for intelligence

As Barack Obama came to national attention as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, many were caught up in the aura of the Illinois state senator. He had a presence about him, an ability to deliver his speech, the way he held his head–all of these would draw great crowds at campaign stops and would eventually catapult him into Presidency of the United States.

The one almost universal description of candidate Obama, and now President Obama, has been that he is intelligent. He is widely considered to be more intelligent than almost anyone else in politics, indeed more intelligent than any other man elected to lead this nation. He just has that aura about him.

And I think that helps explain a great deal this fawning over President Obama–his aura. I am really not convinced that he is particularly intelligent. I do not mean he is ignorant, and I certainly do not denigrate him as so many did the younger President Bush. There simply is little hard evidence to support the commonly-held position that he is possessed of lofty intelligence. As far as I know, his grade point averages at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard have not been released. (I recognize that one’s GPA alone does not signify intelligence, but the media made a great deal of President George W. Bush’s GPA.) As President, Mr. Obama has not really done anything that is widely considered brilliant, while he has made some noticeable gaffes that seem to be fairly overlooked by the national media.

I have to ask: What is there about President Obama which brings about this almost universal acclaim of intelligence? In a word, I think it is the “cool” factor. The President is a cool dude. He bounces down the stairs without touching the handrail. His chin is up while he makes a speech. He looks pretty good with a basketball. He just looks cool.

In America, where a large portion of our citizenry swoons over celebrities, there is great difficulty in distinguishing between intelligence and cool. We fawn over actors who are attractive and can play the part of a character before the cameras. We yawn at the scholar backed by serious research who says something that will actually impact the way we live. We are willingly led by what appears to be than by what actually is (cf. John 7:24). We cannot tell the difference between intelligence and cool.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: