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?

Greed, financial crisis, declining dollar and anger at the US for getting the world into this mess.

Understanding what's happening with the banking crisis, drop in the stock market, and so forth is beyond the "pay grade" of most of us. Yet, it seems to me that most of it is tied to greed and irresponsible behavior by people on Wall Street, poor judgment by people in Congress and lending institutions, and Americans living beyond their means. The result will be a rude return to reality for all of us in the United States. Whether it causes a return to a Depression Era-type experience or a mild imitation is anyone's guess.

One aspect of the problem will be the impact on the US dollar. It's declining value will force Americans to live within their means, because goods purchased abroad will be more expensive. This article by Paul Craig Roberts lays out the case for a devalued dollar and the frustration and anger other nations are feeling towards the US for getting the world into this mess.

The U.S. government's budget deficit is large and growing, adding hundreds of billions of dollars more to an already large national debt. As investors flee equities into U.S. government bills, the market for U.S. Treasuries will temporarily depend less on foreign governments. Nevertheless, the burden on foreigners and on world savings of having to finance American consumption, the U.S. government's wars and military budget, and the U.S. financial bailout is increasingly resented.

This resentment, combined with the harm done to America's reputation by the financial crisis, has led to numerous calls for a new financial order in which the United States plays a substantially lesser role. "Overcoming the financial crisis" are code words for the rest of the world's intent to overthrow U.S. financial hegemony.

Brazil, Russia, India and China have formed a new group (BRIC) to coordinate their interests at the November financial summit in Washington, D.C.

On Oct. 28, RIA Novosti reported that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin suggested to China that the two countries use their own currencies in their bilateral trade, thus avoiding the use of the dollar. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao replied that strengthening bilateral relations is strategic.

Europe has also served notice that it intends to exert a new leadership role. Four members of the Group of Seven industrial nations, France, Britain, Germany and Italy, used the financial crisis to call for sweeping reforms of the world financial system. Jose Manual Barroso, president of the European Commission, said that a new world financial system is possible only "if Europe has a leadership role."

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that the "economic egoism" of America's "unipolar vision of the world" is a "dead-end policy."

China's massive foreign exchange reserves and its strong position in manufacturing have given China the leadership role in Asia. The deputy prime minister of Thailand recently designated the Chinese yuan as "the rightful and anointed convertible currency of the world."

Normally, the Chinese are very circumspect in what they say, but on Oct. 24 Reuters reported that the People's Daily, the official government newspaper, in a front-page commentary accused the United States of plundering "global wealth by exploiting the dollar's dominance." To correct this unacceptable situation, the commentary called for Asian and European countries to "banish the U.S. dollar from their direct trade relations, relying only on their own currencies." And this step, said the commentary, is merely a start in overthrowing dollar dominance.

The Chinese are expressing other thoughts that would get the attention of a less deluded and arrogant American government. Zhou Jiangong, editor of the online publication Chinastates.com, recently asked, "Why should China help the U.S. to issue debt without end in the belief that the national credit of the U.S. can expand without limit?"

It strikes me though the countries most angry bear some culpability by abetting our dysfunction or efforts to live beyond our means.

The most Leftist presidential candidate in our nation's history?

Though he's attempted, generally successfully, to portray himself publicly as a messenger of hope and moderation, Barack Obama is in all likelihood the most Leftist presidential candidate in our nation's history.

His association and involvement with William Ayers' social engineering education initiatives and his own statements on the use of the courts to redistribute wealth show the coming of age of the political Left in American politics. What has percolated in our universities and elites circles is now coming to full bloom in mainstream politics.

Obama's success, despite his radical political views, can be attributed to his rhetoric and reticence to aggressively advocate for some of the positions he's voiced in the past. His recent rhetoric on guns, death penalty, offshore oil drilling and even abortion suggests he realizes the American people aren't where the Left is at. He is by nature not an aggressive risk taker, much more calculating and deliberate. Yet a Democrat controlled Congress, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will no doubt force his hand on many issues he may agree with but realizes they maybe going too far too fast.

He will ultimately, as Pat Buchanan has noted, do battle with his own party or the American people.

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.

Switzerland's bizarre animal rights law

The Swiss Parliament implemented a new law earlier this year regarding the treatment of "social animals." I just came across it recently. It's bizarre to say the least.

According to a news story in UK's Times Online:

The creator of this animal Utopia is the Swiss federal parliament, the Bundesrat, which adopted a law this week extending to four legs the kind of rights usually reserved for two. The law, which comes into force from September 1, is particularly strict over dogs: prospective owners will have to pay for and complete a two-part course — a theory section on the needs and wishes of the animal, and a practice section, where students will be instructed in how to walk their dog and react to various situations that might arise during the process. The details of the courses are yet to be fixed, but they are likely to comprise about five theory lessons and at least five sessions “in the field”.

The law extends to unlikely regions of the animal kingdom.

Anglers will also be required to complete a course on catching fish humanely, with the Government citing studies indicating that fish can suffer too.

The regulations will affect farmers, who will no longer be allowed to tether horses, sheep and goats, nor keep pigs and cows in areas with hard floors.

The legislation even mentions the appropriate keeping of rhinoceroses, although it was not clear immediately how many, if any, were being kept as pets in Switzerland.

Animal protection groups have greeted the news enthusiastically, but critics say that it means an extra financial burden on taxpayers and animal owners, and that it will be impossible to monitor the implementation of the rules. Farmers’ associations have protested, arguing that the law will have a negative effect on the economy and decrease their competitiveness on the international market.

I'm curious what protections are afforded unborn children in Switzerland.