Obama's Meltdown: Reason #11

Nile Gardiner, writing in the Telegraph, identifies 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown. He's right on all counts, but he missed an 11th key reason that Obama is so out of step with the majority of Americans.

Reason #11: President Obama despises America's moral foundation, rooted in the biblical principles of its historically predominant Christian faith, and his administration is actively dismantling that foundation.

Consider his repudiation of America's Christian origin; his appointment of radical pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activists to key positions in his administration from which they have unprecedented power to advance their social agenda; his transparently deceptive executive order promising no federal funding of abortion in Obamacare (the fig leaf provided to Rep. Bart Stupak and other "pro-life" Democrats in Congress to secure their votes for passage); Obamacare's infringement on the right of conscience for medical providers; his administration's rush to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military despite the objections of all of the service chiefs; the administration's sabotage of the defense of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that resulted in it's being ruled unconstitutional in federal district court in Massachusetts earlier this summer.... and those are just the examples that come immediately to mind as I write this post.

Many Americans regard developments like these not just as an outrageous attack on the country they love, but as a personal attack on them, their faith, their values and their families. They have come to perceive this president more as an enemy than as their leader.

Does anyone need more evidence than this that elections have consequences?

An Unhealthy Health Care Bill.

While proponents are touting all the things the new health care bill will do, provide additional coverage for millions of Americans, the negative consequences will be far reaching.

Again, the bill is based on the flawed belief that government can effectively solve our health care problems. The reality is the our significant problems with rising costs is due to government intervention and distortion of the market by providing health care to millions of people and shielding them from some of the costs.

With government debt mounting and this bill only adding to it, we are only marching more quickly to greater problems down the road.

This article by Michael Tanner highlights some of the pain we will be facing in the future. The real problems in our health care system will only be exacerbated not solved by this bill.

In the end, this vote is not about the corruption of the legislative process — although this has been tawdry and sleazy almost every step of the way.

The Democrats have bought votes with pork and special deals. They’ve twisted and ignored congressional rules. They’ve threatened and intimidated critics. And they’ve ended up with a new procedure that will allow them to pass the bill without actually having to vote on it.

Nor is this vote about the massive new spending and debt.

True, even by the president’s circumscribed accounting, this bill will increase government spending by roughly $1 trillion over the next 10 years. But that estimate obscures the real cost behind a smokescreen of accounting gimmicks.

Some costs, like the so-called “doc fix” (avoiding a scheduled 23% reduction in Medicare reimbursements) are pushed into other legislation. And since the bill doesn’t really take effect until 2014, much of the cost is pushed outside the 10-year budget window. Estimates of the bill’s real cost over 10 years of actual operation run as high as $3.5 trillion.

Moreover, because this massive cost is paid for in part through budgetary tricks and promised future Medicare cuts that are unlikely to happen, health-care reform will actually add to our already crushing national debt.

It’s not about the higher taxes and higher premiums that will sock millions of American workers and businesses, either.

Yes, the bill contains more than $600 billion in new taxes. And contrary to President Obama’s promise, many of those taxes will fall on the middle-class. Other taxes, such as a new tax on investment income, will be job killers — this at a time when nearly 15 million Americans are unemployed.

On top of that, insurance premiums would continue to rise, nearly doubling in the next few years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The bill would do nothing to diminish that increase. In fact, for millions of Americans who get their insurance through the individual market, rather than from an employer, this bill will raise premiums by 10% to 13% more than if we do nothing. Young and healthy people can expect their premiums to go up even higher.

And this vote is not even about how this bill will diminish the quality of health care in this country.

Of course, it will result in greater government interference with how doctors practice medicine. It will undercut our research and development efforts. And it threatens to squeeze reimbursements in a way that could put hospitals out of business and cause physicians to leave the profession. In the long run, we could see the type of rationing or long waits that are prevalent in other government-run health care systems.

All these things are bad. But they are not the worst things about this bill.

At its core, this vote is about freedom and the type of country we want to live in.

Health care is one-sixth of the US economy. It involves some of the most important, personal and private decisions in our lives. This bill would give the government unprecedented control over both the economy and those decisions.

Insurance coverage would be mandated for both employers and individuals. Government would determine what benefits insurance would have to include and force Americans to purchase health insurance that satisfies government mandates. This might require Americans who are satisfied with their insurance to switch to a plan that includes the benefits the government requires, even if that is more expensive or includes benefits they don’t want or are morally opposed to.

Insurance companies themselves would become little more than public utilities, protected from real competition, but with every aspect of their operation regulated and controlled by the government.

And once in the doctor’s office, government would micromanage medical decisions, deciding what treatments are most effective, or, frighteningly, most cost-effective.

All this, while accomplishing one of the most massive redistributions of wealth in US history. Millions more Americans will be added to the “dole,” making them more dependent on government. America will have taken a huge step down the road to becoming a European-style social-welfare state.

That is what is at stake here. If this bill passes, America may be less healthy, and it will likely be less prosperous. And, almost certainly, it will be less free.

Gays concerned about a fissure with African Americans in their liberal coalition

I was recently directed to a letter written by National Gay and Lesbian Task Force encouraging their folks to not point the finger at the African American community for shooting down their efforts to defeat the California Proposition 8 constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

It says in part:

This past week has been a difficult time. With the passage of Proposition 8 in California to change the state constitution to eliminate the right to marry, our community has experienced a difficult defeat. We are angry and upset by the passage of Proposition 8 and the betrayal of the promise of equality that has been the hallmark of the Golden State. Yet, we know that this is only a setback in—not the end of—our journey toward full equality for the LGBT community.

It is natural to analyze what went wrong. But in recent days there has been a tendency to assign blame to specific communities, in particular, the African American community. The fact is, 52 percent of all Californians, the vast majority of whom were not African Americans, voted against us. In addition, the most recent analysis of the exit poll that drove much of this speculation determined that it was too small to draw any conclusion on the African American vote, and further polling shows that the margin was much closer than first reported. Most importantly, though, none of this discourse changes the outcome of the vote. It only serves to divide our community and hinder our ability to create a stronger and more diverse coalition to help us overturn Proposition 8 and restore full equality and human rights to LGBT people.

The letter eludes to the fact that there's frustration among homosexuals with the African American community which basically put the amendment over the time. I've heard 70% of African Americans voted for the amendment, far more than any other racial group. Without their support it wouldn't have passed.

African Americans went out to vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers while at the same time voted to protect marriage.

I suspect homosexual activities know that many African Americans are not too excited about having their race compared to a person's sexual preferences as white liberals love to do regarding same sex marriage and previous bans on inter-racial marriage. (For the record, the comparison is invalid; inter-racial marriage bans are also anti-marriage because it attempted to keep particular women and men from marrying; something which is fundamentally different than efforts to fundamentally redefine the institution to include same sex persons.)

Who knows but the election of Barack Obama to the presidency may usher in a new era of African American political engagement in politics. One in which the African American community looks at issues and politics with a fresh perspective. Realizing that alliances with the homosexual community and other liberal groups aren't in their best interest. Whether it pertains to the redefine of marriage which will only cause further disintegration of the family which has so dramatically harmed the African American community. Or the push for further expansion of the welfare state which has only generated dependency and further family breakdown.

The interests of the African American community do not coincide with liberal interest groups.

Will Obama simply push a rewarmed version of the "New Deal?"

President-elect Obama did an excellent job of selling "change" to the American people during the last election. What wasn't always so clear was what that "change" would look like. He did talk about raising taxes on the wealthy, redistributing wealth as a good thing, giving lower income Americans a refundable tax credit, and moving towards universal health care.

In reality, he was only advocating further advances along the lines of the "New Deal" programs of FDR which means more government, more taxes and more regulation of various areas of human life.

Will the current financial crisis be used as a pretext for advancing this agenda just as FDR did the New Deal in the 1930s? Is this another case of history repeating itself? Amity Shlaes, author of a recent book on the Great Depression, suggests that's just might be what happens in this New York Post op/ed piece.

She writes:

THE trouble with new financial crises is that they provide pretexts for implementing old social agendas. As the president-elect's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said recently, "never allow a crisis to go to waste."

Consider President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which President-elect Barack Obama invokes when he talks of "a defining moment." Like Obama today, FDR was inaugurated into trouble. He wisely addressed the financial crisis through the steps that we learned about in school. He signed deposit insurance into law, reassuring savers. He created the Securities and Exchange Commission, making the stock market more transparent and consistent. He soothed our grandparents via his radio Fireside Chats. This was the FDR we love.

But FDR also used the crisis mood to push through an unprecedented program of reforms that progressives had been hoping to put in place for years. Sen. George Norris of Nebraska, for example, had for decades argued that utilities should be in the public, not the private, sector. As far back as the early '20s, Norris wanted to build a big power project on Tennessee River. He wanted the government - and not the Ford Motor Company, which was drawing up such plans - to be in charge. FDR made Norris' progressive dream a reality by creating the publicly owned Tennessee Valley Authority. Washington won out, but it wasn't clear its power served the South down the decades.

Will Obama attempt to do the same thing?

The Obama administration isn't likely to advocate a new NRA. But President-elect Obama may go along with Democrats in Congress as they push other old social agendas. They, like the early-'30s Democrats, now have the ugly snapshot of capitalism for which they longed.

Foremost on their reform agenda, as in 1993, will be health insurance. Indeed, we are practically guaranteed a "healthcarization" of our financial crisis, even though health care and mortgage-backed securities have little to do with one another. "Nationalization" used to be a scare word. But the easy nationalization of the giant AIG makes the nationalization of private health care suddenly seem possible.

A Democratic Washington also will likely legislate the fondest wish of private-sector unions - the famous "card-check" legislation that will deprive workers of the chance to cast an anonymous vote on shop unionization. This, in turn, will put upward pressure on wages that workplaces can't afford.

The greater danger is that the public-sector unions, with support of Democrats, will push up their own pay aggressively. Behind the GM crisis is the crisis of state and city budgets - which the demands of AFSCME, the public-sector union, will only exacerbate.

President-elect Obama creates an opening for such demands when he says, as he did recently, that everything about the last four years was wrong. Everything? Sure, the financial crisis needs addressing. But government health care and card check don't have much to do with mortgage crises.

So remember what's really be going on: Voters want change - Obama's campaign message. But the Democratic Party is widening the definition of change by the hour. And the crisis? It's just a pretext.

If Obama does push New Deal approaches we can expect greater economic difficulties in the form of a much longer recession if not depression or maybe more likely, the return of inflation. The latter resulting from an unwillingess to confront our nation's unwillingness to live within our means.

Will Obama walk the talk on public education when decides where his daughters will attend school in DC?

Many liberal public officials, including President-elect Obama, have touted the value of public education and toed the teacher's unions' line in opposing private school choice options for poor parents.

The inconsistency, or one might say hypocrisy, of their position is they tout their concern for the less fortunate yet vehemently oppose giving poor, often inner city parents the same opportunities they enjoy -- sending their children to a private school in lieu of a poor performing, unsafe inner city public school. (And of course it should be noted that private school choice can be done in such a way that it will actually save taxpayers money in the long run.)

And their opposition to private school choice is also inconsistent with their redistributionist policies done in the name of spreading the wealth around, albeit except when it comes to helping poor parents choose the best education opportunity for their children, which is often a private school.

Clarence Page, African American, liberal columnist raises the question: will the Obama's place their kids in a private or public school?

Parenting humbles any of us who try it -- even new residents of the White House.

Choosing a new puppy? Ha! The Obamas face a much tougher public relations dilemma: Are they willing to put their school-aged daughters where daddy's political promises have been?

The education world is waiting to see whether Sasha, 7, and Malia, 10, will be sent to private school while their father continues to oppose tax-supported programs that offer a similar choice to less-fortunate parents.

The question of vouchers as an alternative to public schools crosses color lines, but it is particularly appropriate for the nation's first African American president.

Page notes that Michelle Obama's actions after the election give a clue to their intentions; she went to Washington, DC and toured a private Georgetown day school.

The inconsistency of people who argue in favor of public schools, oppose private school choice options for poor parents, and yet send their kids to private schools goes beyond Obama and other liberal elected officials to public school teachers. Now I'm sure not all public school teachers oppose private school choice but I suspect most of them do and the teachers union they belong to clearly does.

Page notes that public school teachers send their kids to private schools in significantly greater numbers than the general public.

Yet teachers unions lead opposition to such alternatives, even though studies like a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute report find big city public school teachers to be more likely than the general population they serve to have their own children in private schools.

In Obama's hometown, Chicago, for example, 38.7 percent of public school teachers sent their children to private schools, the Fordham study found, compared to 22.6 percent of the general public.

In Washington, D.C., 26.8 percent of public school teachers sent their children to private schools, versus 19.8 percent of the public.

I wonder if school choice won't become a bigger issue with Obama in the White House. Hopefully, leaders in the African American community will raise their voices on the importance of giving all parents access to better schools, whether public or private schools.

Will the history of the Great Depression repeat itself under an Obama Administration?

It's interesting learning what happened to bring on and lengthen the Great Depression of the 1930s. From what I've read the chief culprit for prolonging the problem was actions taken by the government. They tightened the money supply, raised taxes particularly on higher income folks, the people who run and invest in businesses, and raised tariff barriers which resulted in reciprocal actions by other countries which in turn slowed economic growth.

Looking at some of President-elect Obama's constituencies, it's not hard imaging many of those things happening again. He's already proposing raising taxes on those with highest incomes. His labor union constituents will no doubt clamor for trade protection from other countries. (It doesn't seem likely there will be a tight money policy with the Fed doing all it can to flood the market with money. Bernanke the Fed chair was a student of the Great Depression.)

I came across this graph on what happened with the highest income tax rates during the 30s. They started out at 25% at the beginning of the depression but ended up at 79% by 1940. Today, the highest rate is 36% but will go up to 39.5% if we don't make the temporary cuts permanent. However, with massive budget deficits it's not hard envisioning Obama and a Democrat Congress raising it even higher.

This could be another case of history repeating itself.

Evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for McCain, but according to Barna they're a smaller percent of Americans than you might think.

Evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for McCain over Obama. According to a survey by George Barna it was 88% to 11% respectively. Barna finds though evangelicals represent only 7% of all adults. The reason for the small percentage is Barna uses a more detailed definition of evangelicals based on their theological beliefs.

When pollsters ask individuals to self identify themselves, 41% of individuals who voted identified themselves as evangelicals. Of this 41% only 16% would fit the theological meaning of the term evangelical. Of the self described evangelicals 61% voted for McCain and 38% for Obama.

It would be interesting to see how that dynamic played out among Catholics. Self identified Catholics voted for Obama over McCain by a 56% to 43% margin. Though I'm sure it's much less than the self identified "born again" or "evangelical" split, I wouldn't be surprised if the truly devout Catholics went for McCain., particularly because of his views on abortion and homosexual marriage.

Congratulations President-elect Obama. You will be in my prayers as you lead our nation over the next four years.

With the election of Barak Obama as president we certainly do enter a new chapter in our nation's political life. People concerned about war and the financial crisis facing our nation said they want to give the "other guys" a chance to address these problems.

As people know, who have read my blog posts, I strenuously disagree with many of Mr. Obama's positions and his underlying worldview on the role of government and the importance of protecting the sanctity of life and marriage. And I'll no doubt continue to voice these views in the future. However, Mr. Obama will shortly become our next president. I pledge to keep him in my prayers and will pray that he has the wisdom to navigate the upcoming challenges internationally, particularly the struggle against terrorism, and restoring sanity and order to our nation's financial health. I strongly desire to see him succeed in these endeavors.

His election as the first African American man as president is also a milestone which I believe will have ramifications far beyond his presidency. Hopefully, it will help heal the racial divisions which continue to exist in our nation. His presidency no doubt will serve as hope and an example for a new generation of African American youths. Youths too often devastated by lack of hope and the devastations resulting from fatherlessness and broken homes. His presence in the office of president may well do more good than any legislation he initiates.

May God bless you and your family, Mr. Obama.

Buyer's remorse with Franken?

The latest polling returns from the Minnesota Secretary of State show Norm Coleman winning over Al Franken by 462 votes out of 2.42 million votes. It's certainly too close to declare victory by either side in light of a recount next month. (Hopefully, it won't be a rerun of Florida 2000 controversy.)

But looking at the voting numbers, the race shouldn't have been close if another candidate had been in the race for the DFL. Franken had over 360,000 fewer votes than Obama and nearly 400,000 fewer votes than all eight DFL congressional candidates. In other words, a lot of people ticket split between Obama and Franken. Hundreds of thousands couldn't bring themselves to vote for him no doubt because of his work as a SNL satirist and some of his writings on rape and women and mockery of Christians beliefs. While he certainly brought a lot of money to the table, a candidate with a Minnesota "nice" personality and not the baggage would no doubt have done better.

The people have spoken

We are a post-racial nation with a post-modern president.

Congratulations President-elect Obama.

A black american makes his case for "Why I Can't Vote for Obama"

It's said that the African American community will be voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama partly because of his race. I came across an interesting email message from a black gentleman and pianist, Huntley Brown, who said he won't be voting for Barack Obama and he gives his reasons. They are quite powerfully stated.

Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown

Dear Friends,

A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective.

First, I must say whomever wins the election will have my prayer support.

Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.

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.

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.

We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.

His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (1/31/2008).

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as the most liberal senator takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in two short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas, etc., love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito.
These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion--the same practice Obama wanted to continue.

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, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 race who attends a church like this would never get my vote.

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?

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 king who 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.'

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.

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.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God 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.'

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

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

Though Obama is in lead, young people are leaning towards McCain and there are a lot of undecided voters.

One of the more interesting developments in the presidential race is data suggesting McCain is doing better among young people than Obama.

The poll by Investor's Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (IBD/TMIPP) is described as the most accurate poll in predicting the outcome of the 2004 election. It's been showing Obama with a consistent lead over McCain over the past couple of weeks. The most recent poll released Sunday shows Obama with a 46.5% to 43.3% lead.

A couple of things to note. First is the large number of undecideds, 10.1%. This suggests a lot of people haven't made up their minds. It they break significantly for Obama that would suggest, an overwhelming victory for Obama or for McCain, a narrow victory.

The other interesting number is the support for McCain over Obama among 18 to 24 year old's. The latest poll shows them favoring McCain by 53% to 42% with the caveat that there's much fluctuation because of a small sample. Polls a couple of days showed them favoring Obama but the majority of days show them tilting towards McCain. If that holds up, it might well be suggesting young people are becoming more conservative. This would counter the traditional view that young people are invariably more liberal than their parents. I know polls show young people are generally more pro-life than their elders. But that could be just the tip of the iceberg.

Young people have watched the baby boomers divorce, embrace abortion and spend way beyond their means. Young people have no doubt witnessed the devastation from such behaviors. I wonder if in reaction they are becoming more conservative than their parents and grandparents. Only time will tell.

Doug Kmiec on Obama: moral confusion or worse?

I mentioned earlier this week a LA Times column by law professor Douglas Kmiec who's Catholic and active supporter of Barack Obama. His endorsement has generated attention because he's a Catholic and been viewed as a conservative.

It was bad enough he would support the strongly pro-abortion Obama, but since then he's attempted to justify his support for Obama by attempting to reconcile his pro-life beliefs with Obama extremist views on abortion. His attempts at self justification have only resulted in him digging himself a bigger hole which only further diminishes his credibility.

His effort to justify supporting a stridently pro-abortion political candidate in the context of his Catholic beliefs puts him in the same company as VP candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who attempted to justify their pro-abortion views with their Catholic faith. Archbishop Chaput's recent comments on such efforts by Biden and Pelosi also apply to Kmiec. Chaput said, "To suggest--as some Catholics do--that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse."

Kmiec does seem hypnotized by Obama rhetoric. He points to Obama's comment in the last Presidential debate when he writes, quoting Obama, "Abortion is 'always a tragic situation,' he said, and we should 'try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances.'"

Obama's comments are merely the rephrasing of Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" mantra which merely served as a smoke screen for abortion on demand policies.

While paying lip service to the "tragic situation" of abortion, Obama remains radically pro-abortion. He opposes outlawing the partial birth abortion procedure unless it includes a "health exception" which everyone knows is a blank check for abortion for any reason any time.

And while an Illinois state senator he opposed the Illinois Infant's Born Alive Act which would have banned infanticide. I blogged on that early this summer.

And he certainly will appoint judges who will continue to uphold the current, judicially imposed "abortion on demand" regime.

Yet Kmiec is mesmerized by Obama. He asks the question: "So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes..."

What's the basis for this view? Obama's desire to provide "appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby."

In essence what Kmiec's saying is it's OK to support a person who actively supports policies which permit and encourage the unfettered killing of the unborn as long as the person also supports condom education ("Appropriate education" is a euphemism for condom and contraceptive education at the expense of abstinence education.) along with funding for adoption and government welfare programs.

The American Catholic bishops pointed out the inconsistency of this view in their 1998 "Living the Gospel of Life" statement which says,

Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right -- the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.

Just because a politician may be right on other issues doesn't excuse their continued support for abortion. Kmiec totally ignores this reality.

Kmiec further seeks to justify his view by saying, the repeal of the judicial protection of abortion found in Roe v. Wade really isn't that important; it won't make any difference. Kmiec says, "Even if Roe were reversed -- unlikely, in my judgment -- it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion." That defies logic. The striking down of abortion laws by Roe v. Wade led to a dramatic increase in the number of abortions. It's repeal will no doubt change the public's understanding of the rightness of abortion and result in increased legal restrictions which will mean fewer abortions.

Of course, if Obama is elected president his commitment to appoint pro-abortion judges will only insure continuation of the current abortion on demand regime.

Kmiec then curiously suggests that pursuing a pro-life position will only cause division in our nation and will impose a religious view on the nation. "Pursuit of that goal, too, has shaped Obama's campaign, which has sought to lessen the division between red and blue states in order to restore the nation. Compelled support for one religious view over another, or compelled support for the Supreme Court's view, would inevitably leave us divided for years. The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy."

Give me a break. He knows better than to suggest that protecting innocent human life is somehow the imposition of narrow religious tenet. If that's the case then our laws against murder are at risk because they're imposition of the one of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus. And do we back away from issues simply because they will cause division? If that's the standard then slavery and racial segregation would never have been challenged.

I think this statement shows Kmiec's true colors. It's an argument, tactic of the Left used to marginalize religious conservative voices. It raises questions as to the sincerity of his espoused support for the pro-life position.

Then Kmiec injects a postmodernist argument that we need to let indivdiuals decide what's true.

Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.

Here Kmiec makes the pro-abortion argument that "this sensitive moral decision" depends on "religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths." So does that mean if you believe the voice of God is telling you to kill your unborn baby go ahead and do it? He certainly seems to be saying just that.

Kmiec needs to engage in some truth in advertising by no longer calling himself a pro-life Catholic. He's embraced the Joe Biden view of "I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't want to impose that view on anybody else." That's moral relativism and fundamentally opposed to moral truth and the inalienable right to life.

Archbishop says Obama is the most pro-abortion major party candidate since Roe v. Wade

Archbishop Chaput of Denver called Barack Obama the most pro-abortion candidate from a major party since Roe v. Wade was decided 35 years. He also criticised Catholic law professor Doug Kmiec for arguing it's not a problem for prolifers to vote for Obama.

The Archbishop got is right on both counts. Obama is extremely liberal on abortion if not the most liberal since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Regarding Kmiec's comment, Chaput said:

"To suggest—as some Catholics do—that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse," Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled "Little Murders."

While applauding Kmiec's past record, Chaput said: "I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn."

It's great the Archbishop is speaking with moral clarity to not only Senator Obama's position on abortion, but also prominent Catholics like Kmiec who as the archbishop says is deceived, confused or worse.

The result of Obama and significant liberal gains in Congress? Major shift towards welfare, nanny state and loss of freedom and prosperity.

Gary Bauer's "End of the Day" report reveals the reality of the Obama tax cut proposal. Bauer quotes from WSJ and Washington Times articles pointing out the massive redistribution of wealth consequences of Obama's supposed middle class tax cut.

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times today published articles about Barack Obama’s plan to offer “tax cuts to 95% of working families.” Both articles concluded that the Obama plan is a massive shell-game, redistributing income from one group to another group, similar to welfare. Here’s why: According to various independent analyses, the Obama “tax cuts” would send government checks to millions of households that pay no federal income tax. By any rational definition, that’s not a tax cut – it’s welfare!

According to the Tax Foundation, under current law, there will be “47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009… That's one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals." The Heritage Foundation estimates that “by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.” And the Tax Policy Center found that the government payments for such “refundable tax credits” will balloon to more than $1 trillion in ten years.

In addition, the Wall Street Journal reports that because many of Obama’s “tax credits” are phased out as you earn more, they become a “disincentive to working harder” for many middleclass workers who take on extra overtime or a second job. According to the Journal’s analysis, “Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned.”

How does Obama pay for this plan to give “tax cuts” to people who do not currently pay income taxes? He raids Social Security. The Washington Times report notes, “The Obama campaign dismisses such criticism, arguing that even if many working taxpayers owe no income taxes, they pay Social Security payroll taxes out of their earnings.” So to afford government payments to folks who do not pay incomes taxes, the Obama plan will further erode the solvency of Social Security.

Campaigning in Ohio yesterday, Obama was asked about his tax plan by a plumber, who said, “Do you believe in the American dream? I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.” Obama’s answer was very revealing. He told this plumber, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Spreading the wealth” and mandating equality of results is socialism, my friends. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. What government should do is create an environment where there is equal opportunity for everyone to succeed on their own merits and ability.

If Obama is successful on the tax front as well as on the health care and other social fronts, we'll see a decidedly leftward shift in our economic and political culture. Such a shift would accelerate our move towards the European welfare state model and mean a loss of freedoms and prosperity.

Europe is clearly on the road to economic, social and political decline. Their populations are declining which steams from a collectivist, narcissistic view of life. There is little hope for the future which is revealed most vividly the lack of children. They are driven by a desire for security, exemplified by their cradle to the grave welfare system. The only problem is this system is built on sand which can not be sustained. (There are fewer and fewer taxpayers to keep funding their system.)

An Obama victory with significant liberal majorities in Congress will mean an accelerated shift towards the European welfare model rather than the slow drift we've witnessed in recent decades. Again the cost is clear. Less freedom and less prosperity for Americans.

Biden's, and Obama's, Catholic problem grows. Biden's guffaw problem is manifesting itself on national stage.

Pro-abortion VP Joseph Biden, self identified Catholic, is having more problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church over his efforts to justify his pro-abortion position as a practicing Catholic. On "Meet the Press", he said he believed life began at conception yet wouldn't allow that to influence his positions as an elected official.

The number of Catholic bishops who have spoken in criticism of Biden's positions has grown to 55. One columnist points out this can be problematic for Biden and Obama politically. Not that every Catholic will follow the lead of the Bishops but for those in the middle, efforts by Biden to misrepresent the Church's teaching could be taken as a personal affront. In a tight election every vote can make a difference.

What's incensed Catholic leadership is the false representation of the Church's position on abortion by Nancy Pelosi and Joseph Biden. It's bad enough they identify themselves as pro-abortion Catholics but then to misrepresent the Church's actual teaching on abortion is going too far.

Here's a description of what the Catholic Bishop in Madison, Wisconsin said.

In Madison, Wisconsin, Bishop Robert Morlino reacted angrily to Biden's televised comments, and tossed aside his prepared Sunday homily to focus on the question, realizing that this has become a topic on which Church leaders must speak forcefully. Bishop Morlino told his Sunday congregation:

Senator Biden does not understand the difference between articles of faith and natural law. Any human being-- regardless of his faith, his religious practice, or having no faith-- any human being can reason to the fact that human life, from conception until natural death, is sacred. Biology-- not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology; biology-- tells us-- science-- that at the moment of conception there exists a unique individual of the human species.

Bishop Morlino went on to say that while Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi claim to be honoring the principle that religion and politics are separate realms, the politicians themselves are violating that principle by presuming to speak about Church teachings-- and stating those teachings inaccurately-- before a nationwide television audience. "They're stepping on the Pope's turf and mine," the bishop said, "and they're violating the separation of Church and state, confusing God's good people."

I found it interesting that during Obama's Saddleback remarks on abortion he noted consistency of those who believe life begins at conception and therefore want to protect life from conception. That's why he didn't want to answer the question of when life begins; it was beyond "his pay grade." He knew that if he said life began at conception he'd be asked why he didn't protect it at conception. Obama alluded to the issue of consistency when he said:

One of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

The problem Biden has is he's not consistent and he's stuck his finger in the eye of Catholic leaders. He's history of guffaws is showing itself at inopportune times now that's he's on the national stage.

Changing election dynamics in race for Congress -- Will Republicans regain control of US House? Gallup says it's a possibility.

Going into this election, the conventional wisdom held it would be a wipe out for conservatives. Bush's unpopularity, a war, and a struggling economy all pointed to liberals picking up the White House and expanding majorities in Congress.

But things have begun to change in the last few weeks. Sarah Palin's pick as McCain's VP pick has energized conservatives. The inherent weaknesses of Obama, e.g. style over substance, lack of experience and extreme liberalness. Aggressive campaigning by a 72 year old man who makes his much younger, liberal opponent look indecisive and uncertain. All of these things have changed the dynamics of the presidential race.

Now the dynamics are changing in the race for control of Congress. Congress' approval numbers are in the tank. Over 4o percent worse than George Bush's. A liberal controlled Congress has very little to show after 2 years of majority control. In voter preference for Congress, Democrats have held double digit leads over Republicans over the past two years. According to a Gallup poll, in February of 2008, they held a 15 point lead over Republicans among registered voters . Today it's down to 3 points. Among likely voters, Republicans actually have a lead of 5 points.

If this trend holds up, analysis from the Gallup polling people say Republicans will regain control of Congress.

If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As Gallup's long-term "generic ballot" trend shows, the Democrats held a sizable lead on this measure from the time they won back control of Congress in the fall of 2006 through last month. If the current closer positioning of the parties holds, the structure of congressional preferences will be similar to most of the period from 1994 through 2005, when Republicans won and maintained control of Congress.

This would be a remarkable, stunning turn of events if it holds up. Of course, there is a long time between now and Election Day. I think things will remain very fluid between now and November 4th. There's no guarantee this generic numbers will hold up for conservatives. The timing of the most recent polling was right after the Republican convention so they could be viewed in part as a convention bounce. But the trend over the past couple months has been towards narrowing the gap. This is shaping up to be a very interesting, unpredictable election year.

What Obama didn't tell you when he defended comprehensive sex education -- it is about sex and it's not age appropriate.

The McCain ran an ad highlighting Obama's support for a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have taught comprehensive ("anything goes") sex education to kindergartners. The ad asked why did Obama support teaching kindergartners about sex before they can learn to read.

In response, Obama and his media defenders argue the bill talked about "age appropriate" sex education. I've heard the line about age appropriate before -- that's what the promoters of comprehensive sex education always say. But when you look at the specifics of comp sex ed, it's anything but age appropriate.

Here's an example of what comp sex ed advocates would consider "age appropriate" based on SIECUS, comp sex ed guidelines. (SIECUS stands for "Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States" and they establish nationally recognized comprehensive sex education standards.) Here's a sample of what they recommend for kids, ages 5 to 8.

Ages 5 to 8 --

• "A family consists of two or more people who care for each other in many ways."
• "Vaginal intercourse - when a penis is placed inside a vagina - is the most common way for an egg and sperm to join."
• “Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.”
• “Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.”
• "Masturbation should be done in a private place."
  
• “Adults often kiss, hug, touch and engage in other sexual behavior with one another to show caring and to feel good."

There you have it, sexually explicit and graphic description of sexual activities and practices. They also promote acceptance of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and alternative sexual lifestyles.

Comprehensive sex education is really "anything goes" sex education and it's used to indoctrinate our kids as young as in kindergarten.

Obama losing moderate evangelicals.

Here's an article suggesting Barack Obama is losing the votes of moderate evangelicals who are pro-life and moderate on other issues. It points to Obama poor performance at the Saddleback presidential forum, publicizing of his very pro-abortion record while a state Senator, running pro-abortion ads, and support for forcing faith-based organizations participating in government programs hire people who don't share their faith, and nomination of a strong, prolife VP candidate Palin.

I suspect Obama will start having problems across the board as his very liberal positions on other issues get greater public attention.

While Obama is still slightly ahead in the polls at this date, the momentum is clearly on McCain's side. While there's disapproval of Bush, Obama's proposals are nothing new - higher taxes, more government and radical social policies. That's really a continuance of the long term status quo.

Sarah Palin comes out swinging and hits a home run.

John McCain's vice president running mate, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was hammered in the media the past couple of days. So her Republican Convention speech drew a lot of attention. Was she tough enough to take all the media heat? Or would she be a deer in the headlights? Well, she came across as one tough lady. She was warm and personable and yet hard hitting and assertive.

She took some major shots at the media and Washington elites in addition to Obama. The media commentators generally acknowledged she did a very good job and passed the first major test of her nomination. She can give it as good as she can take it. She dealt with attacks on her inexperience by using sarcasm and humor to compare her experience with Obama's .

The political comparison which comes to mind is Margaret Thatcher who was known for being very tough. I get the sense that Palin has the same toughness yet she also has a likability factor which connects with people.

She has really struck a cord with conservatives who don't necessarily really know her well, but they know that personally, culturally and on the issues she's very conservative.

Contrary to past election history, Palin could have a major impact on the election by energizing conservatives to actively get behind McCain and attracting working class Independents and Democrats. The latter maybe not in a major way, but if things are tight she could make the difference.

Of course, there are a lot of opportunities for her to misstep before Election Day, but her convention speech has given her enormous credibility and momentum heading out of the convention.