Barack Obama – Liberalizing Christianity

Barrack Obama, in courting the Christian vote, met with church leaders recently to plead his case and, in the words of Jeff Greenfield of the Slate blog lessen the opposition to his candidacy. Greenfield points to the power of the evangelical vote in the 2004 election, specifically in Ohio, where there was a Gay Marriage issue on the ballot and evangelicals came out in “droves” as reason for Obama’s meeting with evangelicals. He goes on to explain that past presidents met with opposition groups in order to give those groups a sense that, although they may not agree with the candidates ideology or vote for them, they would come away with a sense that the candidate was not implicitly evil. This would result in this specific leader not speaking out to their congregations or members against the candidate –resulting in a low voter turnout of a specific group on Election Day – which would be good for Obama in this case. The bigger factor in meeting with Religious Leaders is Obama’s interpretation of Christianity to include abortion (or the support or non-opposition to abortion.) Seriously – anyone who believes that one can interpret the Bible, regardless of which brand of Christianity one believes, to allow for a broad view of abortion, has their head in the sand. Additionally, the issue of abortion transcends Christianity, as every major religion is pro-life and denounces the act. The media’s treatment of this issue is interesting - pointing out the variety of brands of Christianity as a defense for Obama. The problem with this thesis is simply that, despite the “brand” of Christianity and/or the influence of a particular leader (Dobson, a Catholic Bishop, etc.) it does not always guarantee that their members or followers will go vote for or against a particular candidate based on his or her stand on this issue. It is the individual who will make that choice based on their personal faith. The question of the power of the church groups is not brought to bear. There are groups within the individual churches, which are briefly mentioned from the pulpit (as in an announcement – “This group will meet…”), but whose members are not influenced specifically by the pastor, rather they are influenced by their opposition to the act, based on one basic tenant. Abortion is murder. When, in the 2004 elections, John Kerry was not allowed communion in the Catholic Church, the only uproar came from the press. Inside the church, the message was clear; support for abortion separates one from the rest of the flock. That did not transcend to all the members who voted their political ideology over their personal theology.

This time, it is not so much abortion that is the focal point, rather, an interpretation of Christianity that is meant to lessen the import of the religion in total. That is in line with a Progressive secular point of view - that religion is meaningless, a panacea for the populace that is dangerous. One need only look to Russia’s history to understand how religion and Communism interacted.


Obama is a Christian that belongs to or believes in a liberal interpretation. He argues that the varied denominations within Christianity do not mesh with his governmental point of view - making sport of the Sermon on the Mount and its application to the Pentagon. His argument, in theory, is based on the lesser import of the variety of brands of Christianity and how they allow for multi-interpretations of the Bible. John Brummet, in an article released this morning from the Arkansas News Service, applauds Obama as brilliant and in regards to those pro-life Christian leaders who might criticize Obama’s pro-choice stand he notes: “Personally, I do not presume to know what God thinks about the various reasons for ending pregnancy. I do not know what He decrees on the issue of when human life begins.”

What the Progressives do not understand or cannot seem to grasp regarding Christianity, and the variety of brands therein, is simple. The New Testament may trump the old (except in the Obama brand) but Jesus Christ himself noted that he did not come to change rather, to fulfill the law. The law he refers to is the law handed down by God to Moses – simply 10 commandments that are the cornerstone of three faiths, upon which all other laws are made. As a Catholic, it is understood that murder, regardless of whether it is abortion or the death penalty – it is wrong. This is pretty much in line with the thinking of all Christian denominations (except again, for Obama’s). The one commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is also pretty basic. Progressives will point out war, and the act of a governor ending the life of a convicted killer is also murder, and they do this to lessen the impact of the faith. The three categories, Abortion, the Death Penalty and War - may be related, however, one must take a realistic view of the three: Abortion is an individual choice; the Death Penalty is governed by the state, as is War. Abortion is seen as a right to take a life under any circumstances, without regard for that life – the same cannot be said of the later.

Brummet goes on to criticize Mike Huckabee for using the phrase “partial view” in regards to Obama’s support of partial birth abortion. He stated “That was a newly incendiary and tactical Republican term - "partial view." - Unless someone has been living under a rock, regardless of what it is called, Partial View, Partial Birth, the process is the same, the child is brought through the birth canal and then killed, at the moment of birth – the details are fairy well-known – it is an abhorrent practice, one which no fair minded person would support. If that child were a kitten, PETA would be all over this, so would Barrack Obama.

It is odd, is it not, that this is now a pivotal issue? Iraq has left the front page, so the war is no longer a selling point for the press or the left, due to the fact that the surge worked. Inflation and the rising costs of Gas, that’s being downplayed a bit, as Obama does not favor a gas tax holiday and would rather push for higher taxes – there is really only one way to go – bring up Abortion. It’s about time.

Hillary Clinton – A Unified Front

Yesterday in Unity, New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton joined Barrack Obama onstage in an attempt to unify the Democrat Party and encourage her supporters to vote for Obama in the fall. There is a definite difference between the two - Hillary Clinton is a moderate Democrat, one who is admired by the blue-collar working class Democrats who overwhelmingly supported Clinton in Key States and women – women who have lived through discrimination and understand that this race was hard fought by a candidate that faced sexism at every step of the campaign trail, especially from the media and members within her own party who felt that the country might not yet be ready for a woman. Barrack Obama on the other hand is a Progressive. This is a critical difference in political ideology – Hillary Clinton could never be accused of being anything less than a Patriot, while a Progressive is more inclined to have a world view, one that includes governments that are socialist in nature. Progressive, in political ideology, does not refer to Progress, rather, it refers to the Progressive Movement, one which many are lead to believe to be “dead” in this country, however, it is most assuredly alive – in our universities and in our media. Progressives admire individuals like Marx and Lenin and believe there is a distinct difference between the Elites (those who would run the country) and the Masses (those who would work for the country). There simply is no Middle Class in Progressive ideology. Many pundits, on both the right and the left, have called into question, the sincerity of Hillary Clinton’s speech. She is a member of the Democrat Party, and therefore, will ally herself with the party speak, that said, she must certainly be aware of the growing power and the absolute danger of the Progressive Party, one which has invaded the Democrat party over the past thirty years, simply because many understood that the country was not about to vote for a Socialist Agenda. Now, with the help of the media, and individuals with deep pockets such as George Sorros, the Progressive Party standard-bearer, Barack Obama is on the road to the White House.





Text from Hillary Clinton Email to Supporters: Subject line: “Unity”


“On February 8, in Unity, New Hampshire, 107 people voted for me, and 107 people voted for Senator Barack Obama.

Today, Barack and I were in Unity to celebrate a unified Democratic Party focused on electing him the next president. I was proud to stand with him today, and I will do whatever I can to help his campaign between now and November.

Senator McCain and the Republicans may have hoped that we wouldn't join forces like this. They may have wished that we wouldn't stand united to fight this battle with everything we've got.

But I've got news for them: We are one party; we are one America; and we are not going to rest until we take back our country and put it once again on the path to peace, prosperity, and progress in the 21st century.”

The question remains, will Clinton backers buy the party line, or send a clear message that it is time for the Democrat party to be taken back to its roots; and not become a Progressive party, one that is based on the failed ideology of communism. One can look to her speech and her letter to supporters – speaking of the party and politely enjoining her supporters to vote for Obama, but overall, the message is clear – 2012.